The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - Ira Glasser, Des Bishop and Chris Gethard

Episode Date: March 3, 2018

Ira Glasser was the fifth executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) from 1978 to 2001. Des Bishop is a New York City-based standup comedian. He may be seen performing regularly at the Comedy Cellar. Chris Gethard is a New York City-based standup comedian and host of the TruTV show "The Chris Gethard Show." He may be seen performing regularly at the Comedy Cellar.

Good evening everybody, welcome to the Comedy Cellar Show here on Sirius XM Channel 99. I'm here of course as always with my very very good friend Mr. Dan Natterman. Hello Dan, how are you? How do you do? Alright, and we have two pretty important comedians. Mr. Des Bishop is here, who's become one of my favorite guests on the show. I'm blushing. He knows a lot about a lot of things that I didn't realize he knew a lot about.

Well, because he's very good looking and you underestimate him. That's probably right. Fine description, Dan. Thank you. And then Chris Gethard, who has his own late night talk show now. It's called The Chris Gethard Show. Yeah. And it's on True TV.

On True TV. And, of course, I don't watch anything but Fox News, but I heard that it's very good. I think I told you they were buzzing about it at True TV when I had a meeting with them one time. I'm happy to hear that. Did I tell you that? I think you have mentioned it.

And he has a wonderful podcast called Beautiful Anonymous also. Chris, is there an angle to this talk show, or is it just your standard talk show? Oh, it's as far from a standard talk show as it gets. It's a live show where people can call in, and I never do a monologue or a political joke. It's just pure chaos all the time. Well, it's about time. Hold on, hold on.

We have a guest of honor. We've got to introduce the guest of honor first. Now we can get Mr. Ira Glasser, who was head of the American Civil Liberties Union from what years? 78 to 2001. 78 to 2001. These were the golden years of the ACLU.

I remember reading somewhere that you were credited with taking the ACLU from a small-time mom-and-pop operation to becoming the national force that it is today, right? You're that Ira Glasser. I'm that Ira Glasser. It was pretty well established before me, but it grew a lot.

It grew a lot. And you were the man behind the decision to defend the Nazis when they wanted to march in Skokie. No, no, actually I was not. That was a case that was handled by our Illinois affiliate locally at the time. And at that time I was not the national head of the ACLU. I was the head of the New York Civil Liberties Union. So I was really, I had no part in the initial decision. I had a large part in defending that decision, but not in making it.

And you defended it wholeheartedly? Yes. And you would defend it again today if you had to? Yes. And do you think the Civil Liberties Union today, if the Nazis wanted to march now in Skokie, Illinois, would defend it again? Because I think they wouldn't. Yeah, I am worried about that. I would hope so.

I mean, I've been retired now for nearly 17 years, and I am no more familiar with the day-to-day stuff of the ACLU than you are reading the newspapers. But there's a number of reasons to question whether or not they would as vigorously and as unambiguously defend those rights as they did then. Yeah, well, and this is, you know,

there's an intersection between what comedians are concerned about and what the ACLU is concerned about. And I always thought that, of course, the Constitution protects us from government action, but there's also a spirit of civil liberties, which we kind of live by in our day-to-day lives, and that seems to become eroded

as the fight to protect our actual civil liberties become eroded. So that we see in the workplace people are not tolerating people having their opinions, people being fired. Like the Me Too thing we have with Louie and Aziz. This is somehow all related to me. You know, it is related. And it's a mistake to think that the right of free speech flows from the First Amendment. It's actually the other way around. The right of free speech comes first, and the First Amendment makes it easier, gives you a weapon to protect free speech if it's the government trying to repress it. We had a case in the early 70s where a man who was seen at a parade on a Saturday when the factory he worked at was closed in upstate New York, mid-state New York.

He was participating in a parade that was urging the impeachment of President Nixon. This was 1973 after the Watergate stuff. Des, Watergate was this big... Thanks very much for you. Thank you. I would have preferred a synopsis of the Nazi incident rather than your joke about Watergate. And, you know,

he came into work Monday morning and his boss fired him. Because he had seen him demonstrating for impeachment and he was a pro-Nixon guy. And so the question arose, can you do anything, can we do anything, the ACLU, about this guy's right of free speech? If a cop had arrested him for participating in that demonstration,

we could have done something about it. Right. But because this was a private employer, we couldn't. Now, we could remonstrate about it. We could make a lot of noise about it. If there was a contract involved, we could say that there was a violation of the contract for an illegitimate reason. But basically, the right of free speech is relatively unprotected when the power that interferes with it is not a government power.

And that's a terrific problem because employers have that power, private universities have that power, Private corporations of all kinds. And this is where the comedians, I hope you guys are worried. Like, now with social media and the instant call to boycott, you can take people down and people are looking. I mean, there's professional. There's clearly an industry of outrage. Yeah. Let's just keep our antennas up to find somebody that said something that we don't like,

and then let's gather the clouds. Can you find something that... I think Noam exaggerates the extent to which comedians are censored by the public or by the culture. No, they censor themselves because they're worried about it. Okay, well, we've always censored ourselves. I mean, can you... Every comedian has always had to censor themselves because our job is to... To go over.

Is to go over in front of the audience. But you weren't worried about making jokes. Samaril almost got taken down for making a joke about the alligator. The woman... Well, I don't think that's a sign of the times. I think that's... The alligator that killed a kid in...

I think it was Florida. Samaril made a joke and an audience member was very upset about it. I don't think you can... I don't think you can, I don't think you can blame the times that we live in for that. Look, Chris Rock came in here and made a joke

which was pretty prescient about... Not only was it prescient, but it was very, it foretold what was going to happen. Pretty, and about the Me Too movement and where he made a joke

about being worried to hire about being afraid to hire women and being alone with them because he's a target. And immediately, page six... Oh, that's right, that piece in the post. Page six picked it up, and they spun it very negatively against him, and then it went viral. There's no question that that's always been the case, as you say, and there's also no question that it's much worse now

and he didn't come back here for 3-4 months can you think of a classic comic bit from the past without getting into Lenny Bruce because quite frankly I'm not familiar with his work did I answer your point? so now here's a guy Chris is afraid to say

certain things where years ago he wasn't worried about the comedy. The Lenny Bruce thing was all about the government. The government shut him down. The government arrested him. The government prevented him from performing. It was never the public. Now it's the mob. Can you name a classic comedy bit that couldn't be done today from the past?

Yes. All in the family. All in the family. All in the family. I'm 80 years old in a month and I'm forgetting names. Oh my god, you look fantastic. I am fantastic. I can't believe you're on stage. He's looking at you closely now.

I see that. The basic political strategy is outlast the sons of bitches. That's what I'm doing. That's amazing for me. But the name of that, I'm forgetting things. It's okay. The name of that, you know, the famous Jewish comedian who was...

Jackie Mason. Jackie Mason. Jackie Mason. Jackie Mason. Jackie Mason could not perform today. He could not. That's why he does perform today. He went quiet for a long time in the middle of his career anyway, right?

Didn't he get in trouble for something? He called David Dinkins a fancy schvatzel with a mustache, and he did get, deservedly so, he got in some trouble for that. Well, he always got into trouble. You know, it's okay to get into trouble for what you say. You know, you've got to make a distinction between your right to say something and the right of other people to trash you for it, but not prevent you from saying it.

Jackie Mason's Broadway show, which he did in the, I guess, in the 70s. No, the late 80s. That couldn't run today. Wait, wait, wait. I was going to say, I do think

we often forget that as comedians. I'm as for free speech as anyone. I do think sometimes these things happen and the knee-jerk reaction of comedians is like, we're comedians. We have to be allowed to say whatever we want. And we forget the half of, people are also allowed to get mad at us. There needs to be a middle ground

though where people's careers aren't ruined over and over. That's all that concerns. People are allowed to be super pissed off at anything you say. The concern is because people feel like that is the result now, to take somebody down. But I'm not exactly sure what they think we're gaining from that. You know what's very fascinating as well is, and correct me if I'm wrong, I used to feel that liberalism were the defenders of free speech. Now I actually feel that it's rooted in the progressive movement to take people out. Well, there was never, it was always a mistake to conflate liberalism with libertarian principles.

Civil liberty, most of the people who supported civil liberties, who were members of the ACLU, were liberals. I always regarded that as unfortunate, because if you believe in civil liberties, it has to be across the spectrum. It has to be for everybody or it's for nobody. But the fact is that historically, liberals have only been for free speech when it's their free speech, or the speech of people that they agree with.

The progressives in the early part of the 20th century were not, by and large, civil libertarians across many issues. So that, you know, the fact that the people who call themselves progressives today are against what they call hate speech is not surprising to me. And it's not unprecedented and it's not a historical aberration.

It's always been thus. And of course what they don't understand, tragically they don't understand, is that the only thing that matters in a free speech controversy is who gets to decide. And people who don't have power, whether they're progressives or liberals or conservatives or, you know, people who don't have power are never the ones who get to decide. If you give the government the power to stop, to censor, to punish hate speech, it all depends on who is in the government

who's going to be doing that. If the government is Rudolph Giuliani, or Richard Nixon, or Joe McCarthy, or Donald Trump, who do you think is going to get, whose speech you think is going to get repressed? It isn't going to be David Duke. It's going to be the progressives.

But isn't it fair to have a concern that if hate speech incites violence, that you should control it? Well, you know, the key phrase there is incites violence. You walked right into his trap, Des. Go ahead. Well, that's fine.

I mean, somebody got killed in Charlottesville, so I'm happy to discuss it. No, no, no. Charlottesville, you know, it's like to talk about guns. You have to remember that in Charlottesville, so I'm happy to discuss it. No, no, no. Charlottesville, you know, it's like to talk about guns. You have to remember that in Charlottesville, the instrument of killing was a car. That's right. It was not a gun. And the people who carried guns around were like the people, like the Black Panthers carrying guns in the 60s. I didn't hear, I never heard any liberals complaining about that.

Never. But when it was right-wing crazies who were carrying the guns, the liberals said, oh, they're inciting violence. The violence came from somebody in a car. And the reason that that violence happened and the reason that that person was killed was because the police did a poor job of anticipating and protecting speech of both sides in a volatile situation. And, you know, the incitement to violence can be stopped. But Eugene Debs. Okay, so if you're talking about the cops and everything, just in terms of like controlling hate speech. I want to come back to Charlottesville, but go ahead.

Yeah, but should guys in tiki torches shouting Jews will not replace us, is that the moment where the cops should say, guys, this is out of control? No. No, because, you know, when people who were against the war in Vietnam in the late 1960s and early 70s

marched around saying, LBJ, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today? And burned him in effigy. Was that an incitement to violence? Well, it doesn't matter whether one or the other is. I mean, some of them are. So can you control that? Well, it's a very fine...

It becomes a factual matter of whether or not speech that people are fearful about actually incites violence. Can I add something to it? Yes, yes, yes. Because I think there's certain things we have to live with. Certain things are worth taking certain risks, even if some people get hurt. Because what happens is it just expands and expands and expands, such that today, this guy Ben Shapiro, who's a pretty mainstream conservative guy, doesn't say anything.

They spend millions of dollars in security to have this guy be able to speak around the country at universities now. He's just a regular conservative because people are emboldened by this idea of incitement to violence. And there's this Heckler's veto. So if you stop this guy because this is incitement to violence, all of a sudden the next group, oh, we're going to be incement to violence and there's this heckler's veto so if you stop this guy because this is incitement to violence all of a sudden the next group oh we're going to be incited to violence there's going to be violence and it expands and expands and expands

I agree with that that's why I use the most extreme example if from time to time there's some violence from time to time there'll be some violence that's what I think I think that that's right, but let me try to give you an example of what the law actually...

The law actually holds... I want to read you what the current ACLU guys said. Okay. Go ahead. The law actually holds that a speech that is an incitement to imminent violence can be curbed. For example, if you have a lynch mob and the lynch mob

is marching toward a jail where somebody is held that they want to take out and lynch, and the guy says, let's get the son of a bitch, that speech is not protected. That's incitement. Incitement is not

getting up on a soapbox and saying, as a man named Sidney Street did in New York in the late 60s, he burned an American flag and he said, you know, if people with my skin color can get lynched and shot in the South, then this flag does not represent the ideals it's supposed to. And he burned the flag, and he got on the 6 o'clock news. Other people took that as an incitement to violence, and he got arrested. We defended him. We won that case. You know, the fact that kids in Iowa

in 1969 put on black armbands and went to school with the black armbands to protest the war against Vietnam they got suspended by the principal on the grounds that their black armbands would incite other people to violence

but there's a difference in that there's a difference well cause Charlottesville I guess my question and I'm not trying to be would incite other people to violence. But there's a difference in that. You had to stop that. Chris Gethard begs to differ. Well, because Charlottesville, I guess my question, and I'm not trying to be contentious for the sake of it, it's an honest question. If people show up with guns and clubs, some of them wearing what looks like tactical armor,

and they're chanting, Jews will not replace us, at what point is it fair for a Jewish person, who comes from a culture that people have been hunted and killed, at what point is it fair for them to feel like violence is imminent? Oh, no, no. They can feel that. But the fact of the matter is, is that a lot of that is symbolic. In fact, in Charlottesville, except for the guy who drove his car into the crowd, all of those guns, there were no guns fired.

They were all symbolic. They were doing exactly the same thing that the Black Panthers were doing, except some people of our political sensibilities did not feel threatened by the Black Panthers carrying around guns, and we did feel threatened by these alt-right people carrying guns. I guess my question is, because you you know, you're right, no guns were fired, but you watch that footage and it looks like a small American city that has descended into lawlessness. And that was because of police and cops.

That's my exact question. At what point are the police supposed to step in? Let me tell you what happened in New York and in Chicago and in other places that didn't happen in Charlottesville. In New York in the 1970s, anti-war demonstrators marched down the caverns of Wall Street against the war. This is like 1971. Hardhats who were working on construction projects along the route attacked them. They were incited to violence by the anti-war speech. The anti-war people were not violent, but the people, the hardhats were.

The cops stood by, and the city tried to ban the speech on the grounds that it had created the violence in other people. Nowadays, what happens is that in New York and Chicago and in many other places, although it didn't happen in Charlottesville, the cops know that if you're going to have two volatile opposing views in a contiguous space, that there's a potential for violence.

What they do is they create barricades, they separate these people, and they protect the rights of both people to demonstrate, but they don't allow what happened in Charlottesville to happen, which was chaos, and that was a failure

of policing. It was not... I mean, whose speech do you stop? Can I ask you this question? of of policing it was not a fit was not it was i mean whose speech to you do you stop right you can ask you ask you this question for this is this is what i mean i don't like that if people walk around carrying guns but you know i i somehow think it was a pro-choice movement they were carrying guns people wouldn't do it the same way but

is it a civil liberty to be able to live your life to the full extent that the law for the democratic process, has decided you can. Meaning that if your community has decided democratically that we're going to allow people to carry guns, then don't you then have a civil liberty to say, yeah, I can go protest carrying a gun because it's a democracy and that's the laws that my representatives have made for me

and how can you blame me now? Well, that's right. That's my liberty. It may be a terrible idea. Yeah, well, I think the Second Amendment has been completely misinterpreted. I'm not saying the Second Amendment. That's a separate issue. Yeah, I'm saying just the idea that these are the laws,

and how can you tell me now I don't have the right to do what it is my legislature has specifically said? Symbolic speech is always a problem. When people burn flags, they got arrested for inciting violence. When people carry guns in a demonstration, in a society where they're allowed to carry guns, as you say, you've got to make a distinction between speech, including symbolic speech, and conduct. Now, the difficult question is where does the speech bleed into conduct, and at what moment do the police step in? And the answer has to be that the police have to be good enough and competent enough to anticipate a volatile situation

and protect the rights of both sides to speak, but keep them separate and have enough of a show of police force to prevent the chaos that happened in Charlottesville. Now, the guy in charge of the ACLU now, Executive Director Anthony Romero, told the Wall Street Journal, the events in Charlottesville require any judge,

any police chief, any legal group to look at the facts of any white supremacy protest with a much finer comb romero told the journal if a protest group insists no we want to be able to carry loaded firearms well we don't have to represent them we'll find somebody else and i'm thinking this is such a dodge because a it is a dodge nobody was shot as you say and b it's not as if in like a protest in chicago where we know there's tons of illegal weapons being carried by the people in these protests. They're saying, well, we're not going to allow protests in places where there's lots of gun violence and we can presume there's lots of weapons. It's only when there's legal guns being carried, even though no one was ever shot,

and now we're looking for a way not to defend them. It's interesting that part of my problem with those kind of statements coming out of the ACLU these days is that they are determined by the content of the speech and not by the principle involved. No statement from the ACLU like that ever happened during the days when Huey Newton and Bobby Seale and the Black Panthers were marching around with guns. And every white person in America felt threatened by that. It's clear, by the way, Norm, that he's dying to talk about the Second Amendment and take it head on. You want to talk about the Second Amendment? He's dying to.

How can you not? Can I ask a question before we move on? How can you not dive into the Second Amendment? I want to talk about abortion. I want to talk about Anglo-American law. Go ahead. Given what's happening. Just before we move on, because I find this very fascinating.

As far as symbols go, I agree that things that are symbolic are speech. But at what point does a symbol presume a threat? If you bring a gun to a protest that's not loaded, I agree that it's a symbol. If you put bullets in it, aren't you in effect saying, I have the ability to kill you in an effort to put someone on the defensive? Well, that is the question that seems to be raised by what happened in Charlottesville. But again, you have to understand the violence in Charlottesville was by a car, not a gun. As far as I know, there were no guns fired.

Of course. Let's presume for the sake of argument that somebody did shoot a gun. Would that change your position in any way? Yeah, you have to stop the guy who's shooting the gun. But don't you feel it's unfortunate that we have to have this change your position? You don't have to stop the guy who's carrying the gun on the grounds that maybe he'll shoot the gun. But is it not fair to say that if I'm in Charlottesville and those guys show up and I am of a group that they are chanting against and they have a gun,

is it not fair to say that maybe some of the people who participate in some of these melees do feel threatened? Let me ask you this question. Let me ask you this question. Let me ask you a question, if I may. You're saying, did you have a right to feel threatened? Let me ask you this. If you would add a gun, would you be justified in shooting them merely for chanting, Jews will not replace us with a loaded gun? No, but I'm not the one who shows up with a gun.

There you go. If someone shows up with a gun and it feels like a tense, violent situation, can you blame the person who's throwing a punch at the guys with a gun? If someone came to you in a situation with a gun and felt threatened, don't you feel like you should try to knock them out? It's dangerous. Every time I went to a demonstration, a civil rights demonstration, in the 60s, I mean every time, not just in the South, but in the Bronx, every single time.

And I was surrounded by white, tough-looking kids who were furious to the point of losing control. Every single time. They didn't have guns. Every single time I felt threatened. And every civil rights demonstration in the South, they always felt threatened. And sometimes they got killed because the police didn't protect them. But if you go to the 1980s

and the Klan is marching through downtown Atlanta, and by that time the Klan is defanged. They aren't the Klan that they were in the 30s and the 40s and the 50s when they had power. Now they are demonstrating precisely because they don't have power. But every black person I knew

was terrified by the sight of those people in their pillowcases and sheets marching peacefully through the streets of Atlanta because of what that symbol meant to them and their families in the past. And I know, you know, the Jews in Skokie, many of whom were survivors of the concentration camp, the idea that 10 people, 15 people, 20 people, unarmed, but marching through their streets with swastikas, that they would see that again, have to live with that again. Of course,

they were terrified and they had a right to be terrified, but they didn't have a right to stop them. But isn't that different than a loaded gun? Like I hear what you're saying, a Nazi armband or a burnt flag. Yeah. Chris, I agree with you, but that has to be a matter for the legislature to legislate on what the conduct they're going to allow or not allow in public with guns. But we can't start selectively enforcing that because of the point of view of the person holding the gun.

All right, that brings us to... You are right. You agree with that? Yes. And I agree, too, that this is clearly me being baffled that you can walk down the street

with a loaded gun. You're saying you need like a Glasgow Rangers, Glasgow Celtics situation where any time those two teams are playing each other, there is no way

that they're anywhere near each other because it's too much of a dangerous situation. Is that what you're saying? Well, they can be near each other, but the cops have to keep them separated

and protect both of their rights to say what they want to say. Let me say about Charlottesville what was interesting. Let's get to the Second Amendment, for God's sakes. I mean, you've been reading the papers. Go ahead. Go to the Second Amendment. Have you been reading the papers? Yeah, but I don't see the Second Amendment issue.

It's a huge issue. Why? Go ahead. Well, how is it not an issue? That's what people have been discussing. What are the limits of the Second Amendment? I don't see any... Look, the Supreme Court

made a profoundly intellectually dishonest decision a few years ago, written by the most intellectually dishonest justice of all time, Scalia. Good day, sir. it was 5-4.

It was 5-4. You waited until he died. No, no, no. I said it all the time while he was alive. I have a feeling you would have said it right to his face. I did say it to his face. In debates. The fact is that historically, the Second Amendment did not confer an individual's right to walk around with a gun. Says who?

Says history. Shall not be infringed. I got to say something. Read the Second Amendment. I've read it. Boys, I'll let you go wherever you want, but I want to say something. The reason I say I don't see a Second Amendment issue, because I believe if there were no Second Amendment, you would still not see any gun laws passed in Florida

or any gun laws passed in the United States of America. I do not think it's not happening because people say we don't have the right to do it. They don't want it. And that's why I don't see a Second Amendment issue. Well, but there is a Second Amendment issue because the Second Amendment was designed by the states at the time that the Constitution was adopted. And they did not want to pass the Constitution or ratify it unless a Bill of Rights was added. And one of the things they were afraid of is giving up.

You've got to remember, this was sort of a little bit like the European Union. The states were sovereign entities that did not want to yield power to a central federal government. And they were afraid that if they did yield power to a central federal government, the federal government would come down on them, would arm force and take away their rights. They believed that. The Second Amendment was the result of that belief. What it did is it gave states the right to maintain state militias against the time when the federal government

might move against them. But couldn't they have... But when you look at the actual words of the Second Amendment, it doesn't say the state governments have a right to... It does. They have a right to a militia. It does. But it says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No, no, no. A well-regulated militia. I know. But if it said, look, cheeseburgers, everybody has a right to cheeseburgers. No one is ferociously Googling right now. I'm going to read it. No, but it can fairly be interpreted. Look at the history.

No, it can't fairly be interpreted. No, it cannot. It cannot fairly be interpreted. The words of the Second Amendment. Let's read it. And it's No, it cannot. It cannot fairly be interpreted. The words of the Second Amendment... Let's read it. And it's interesting how it starts. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state. It's setting up the whole purpose of it.

A right of a people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But it doesn't say the right of people to keep and bear arms in the context of the militia. It says simply... No, it does say it. It simply says... They mentioned the militia at first. They mentioned it at first. I understand that.

This is the reason. This is not a question of fighting over commons. I'm looking at the words. The words are at best ambiguous. Do you know who you're arguing with? I know. It's like watching a guy ride a bike uphill in a hurricane. The word is not only unmistakable.

Let him talk, then. If you're serious about this, you have to read the Constitutional Convention. You have to go back and read the debates. They tell you what they meant by it. And what they meant by it was to give the states the power to maintain militias. Now, back in those days, the states maintained militias. They didn't have armories. They maintained militias the way local towns today maintain fire departments.

They sang an alarm, and people came with their cars to the fire. And what happened is people came with their muskets. And in order to allow the states to be able to maintain a militia when they needed it, they needed to protect the rights of their citizens to carry muskets. They didn't protect their rights to, they didn't talk, and that

is the whole purpose of the In fact, people were not allowed, if you've seen a lot of western movies, have you ever seen a Wyatt Earp movie? Never did. You never did? No, I never saw it. Well, go see it.

How can you have a foot to stand on? You know what Wyatt Earp did? No. He prevented people from bringing guns into town. Yeah, Dan. And nobody... Well, Earp had no respect for the Second Amendment. Well, he had a C- rating from the NRA.

The Second Amendment wasn't at play. Not in all those movies, not in all the newspapers, not in all the history. Do you ever see anybody raise the issue of the Second Amendment? Because the Second Amendment was designed to give the states power vis-a-vis the federal government. It was not designed to give individuals a right against state governments. So they ban guns all the time in the Old West. Anything else on the Second Amendment? What do you want?

I want to hit a few of the main civil liberties topics going on in the country. How hard you fought to talk about the Second Amendment, only to have a person who's scholarly in the Constitution break it down that hard. I'm looking at the words of the Second Amendment. He's got you at a disadvantage. It's a subject. If you've never seen a Wyatt Earp movie,

and you've never read the Constitutional Convention debates, where they discuss what they meant by this, then you're... I will read them. I will read them, but... Then we will read them. I will read them. But I'm looking at the words. Will you come back and debate him? Dan, have you seen Young Guns 2?

I'm looking at the words. Young Guns 2. It has a Bon Jovi song in the... I'm looking at the words of the Second Amendment. It was an anachronistic choice for the soundtrack. Just looking at the bare words of the Second Amendment. Because your argument doesn't stand up, even if only you do look at the words. Well, it does stand up if you look at the words.

But if you look... If you look at the words, it's the best ambiguous. I don't care how much education he has. I'm saying you're at an impasse here. No, because now we can talk about the Second Amendment. Now we can talk about what practical things we can do, putting the Second Amendment aside. That's what I tried. What's the best way to protect kids in schools?

Oh, good question. Do you believe, let me ask you one other thing. Do you believe that the right to bear arms includes the right to own a tank? No, I don't believe that. Why not? Well, you know what?

The Second Amendment doesn't distinguish. And it's a good point, why not? That's why I propose, and you're right, it is a good point, why not? I can't answer that because the words of the Second Amendment

said shall not be infringed. No, because you don't know the history now how about a nuclear weapon if i look at the strict word this is why i propose we need to have a national referendum and revisit the second amendment no you need to revisit what the second amendment means and you need to learn your history before you think any more about it i i think that i think that my my point is actually more important, which is that the desire of the country is not to limit in any meaningful way the right to firearms.

Well, I don't know. It's very unfortunate. And especially state by state. And if the federal government were to do it blanket and over the blue state, over the red states, they will really freak out, and we're going to have even worse social problems than we have now. So I think we're at an impasse.

I think they're going to make certain slight adjustments, and I think that they're not going to do much good, but hopefully a few lives will be saved. But as we know, the real violence, the real carnage is not in these unbearable mass shootings. It's in the day-to-day violence in cities, mostly with illegal weapons, where they're killed by the thousands.

Well, I want to say that there's something. And that's not going to change. It's one of many. No, no. Percentage-wise, these are like lightning strikes. But of course, of course, life in, you know, in... But they're unbearable. Life in hard neighborhoods and inner cities is an issue,

but that doesn't negate the fact that we have to protect schools. No, it doesn't negate it, but I'm saying that... Schools are a sacred place where children go. Like, it's a totally

different environment. But it may be impossible to... Well, listen, you can protect them. It depends how much... Like, I have two children in grammar school,

and I would like there to be a guard with a gun at the school. I wish... There was a guard at the school. I wish... There was a guard at the Florida school. And he stood down. Because it can't do any good with a lunatic with an AR-15. With less legal guns, there's less of the illegal shooting.

You can't just have a guard. You have to have one entrance and a fence around the school. I mean, because... And people have to enter through that one entrance. If you could pass every law that... That's a great way for kids to go to school, by the way. If you could pass... I'm not saying it's a great way for kids to go to school, but if you want to stop it, that

might help. If you could pass every law that practically, like, reasonably, you think actually could get passed the United States of America, obviously you're not going to disarm the whole country. Every one of these restrictions, background checks, raising the age, whatever it is. What percentage of gun deaths do you think we're looking to save here? 1%?

I would take that. 2%? No, I'll take it. But the fact is— Why don't you bring it down to like a European average? Right. Well, listen. I'll tell you why.

And Nate Silver has written about this. Because we have tremendous social problems in this country that they do not have in Europe. And actually... That require guns? No. Actually, I'm afraid... And this goes to say, like, I'm going to repeat something that I read in FiveThirtyEight.com. Not on Richard Spencer's website.

All right? In FiveThirtyEight.com, not on Richard Spencer's website, all right, in FiveThirtyEight.com, he wrote that white America, with all its access to guns, Nate Silver wrote this, has gun violence just a little bit above Finland. Just a little bit above Finland. Non-white America has third world nation carnage. This is a social problem, which is, of course, exacerbated by the access to guns. But that, we will never be like Europe because we're not Europe.

But they have poverty in Europe, too. It's not poverty. No, they have violence. No industrial developed country in the world has anything close to the gun violence we have. That's right. However, it is still... And the difference is the availability of the gun. No. No, but that's not according to what I read

in 538.com. But it's definitely more the difference. 538.com is not the Bible. He had the stats. No, no, listen. I don't like people who invoke authority. He's a data guy, right? He's a data guy who predicted that Hillary Clinton was going to win the election.

Yeah, but his prediction was accurate. It's a prediction of odds. No, his prediction was inaccurate. No, no. Well, actually, it was. He gave a 30% chance for Trump to win. 30% is one out of three. All I'm saying is, you I'm saying is, don't,

you can't argue this by citing what somebody said as authority. It doesn't make any sense. Because I can cite somebody else that said something different than we were. I actually looked into it. I was actually very skeptical

of this article. And I did look into it and I wasn't able to find a thing. And clearly we do have social problems in this country that they don't have in Europe. We do have problems here. We're getting a little far afield here.

Okay. I say that with a heavy heart. I hope it's not misinterpreted. I'm just saying that I think it's a—shut up, Keith. It can be very sophisticated to compare it to Europe. It's interesting to me that you haven't mentioned the drug war yet, which no other country has the way we have. On the drug war, probably more agreement with you. And the drug war is the major reason

why weapons proliferated in this country. The drug war and sales by the United States military. And the drug war, it's on record that it's no longer a conspiracy theory that black communities were targeted. Right? This is a proven thing that the CIA... Look, Al Capone was white,

and the people he shot and killed and blew up were mostly also white. And the dynamic that created that in the 1920s is the same dynamic that has created inner-city violence now. And the fact that the ethnicity of the actors have changed is not relevant. Now, the truth is that race, skin color, I should say, not race, because race is a fiction.

I agree with that, too. Skin color has been an instrument of subjugation in this country from the very beginning, and it continues to be, and it's beyond class, too. But that is not the explanation for violence. The explanation for violence has to do with what happened during the drug war, and still happens, and with the proliferating availability, not just of weapons, not just of handguns, but of military weapons. When I said, would you think that the Second Amendment gives you the right

to own a tank or a nuclear-tipped shoulder air missile, everybody says no. But what about the AR-15? The AR-15 is a military weapon. No, it's a semi-automatic. It's not a fully automatic weapon. It's still a military weapon. It has no legitimate purpose except for that. Can I just say this one?

I just think that America has a love of violence. And this is beyond any racial. America has a love of violence in a certain way, which seems to go beyond some other cultures. It just seems to be. Let me ask you this, Noam. You mentioned that America doesn't want profound gun control or gun laws. Look at the glorification of violent culture

and music videos and carrying guns and being menacing and all this stuff. Look at John Wayne. But he was for fighting the bad guys. Only in his dreams. He never was in the military, was he? But his character wasn't menacing to innocent people. I think it was different.

Go ahead. But, Noam, you had said at the top of the conversation that with or without the Second Amendment, was different. Go ahead. But, Noam, you had said at the top of the conversation that America, with or without the Second Amendment, put the Second Amendment to the side, Americans don't want rigid gun laws. That may be true, but do we know that because the NRA makes a lot of noise and gun

advocates make a lot of noise, but how does the average American feel about gun control? I've read... Well, Florida could outlaw these AR-15s if it wanted to. It doesn't. Well... New York does. I mean, from what I've read, Well, Florida could outlaw these AR-15s if it wanted to. It doesn't. Well... New York does. I mean, from what I've read, most surveys indicate that a majority of Americans at least want some, are in favor of some further gun control.

I don't know if these... Yeah, they say that until... You know, one of my daughter-in-laws grew up in a small rural town in South Carolina. Everybody she knew, her grandfather, her uncles, her cousins, everyone she knew had guns in the garage. They had shotguns,

they had hunting rifles, they didn't have AR-15s. They didn't have bazookas. They didn't have hand grenades. Why should those be available? Can I amplify it now? Can I rehabilitate myself?

Fair enough. But you can make a good case that semi-automatic hunting rifles shouldn't be available. Hold on. I want to say something. Let me rehabilitate myself and take this beyond the social problem of race. There's also social, obvious social. Thank God you did because I'm going to use the Al Capone example every time I'm chanced up again. Because that was a great example.

It was. To be fair, though, those were Italians. When I was a kid, you could go to the local sporting goods store on Central Avenue right near my house and buy a rifle. In New York. It was very, and I imagine that we're living, even what we're living in now, guns are less available than they've ever been. Nevertheless, somehow, people weren't shooting up the schools. And now these school shootings, these are mostly in white communities, right? We have a social problem.

It's a different social problem, obviously. But there's a social problem, too. I don't think that in Sweden, I think they do have guns in Sweden, actually. I mean, we have problems here in the white... Life expectancy is going down. Mental health is getting worse. Opioid addiction is all... But it's all kinds of problems.

Families are breaking up. You have almost half the kids now are born without mother-father families. The guy who killed all those people in Las Vegas was not mentally ill. He was not under 21. And he didn't have any visible serious problems of the kind you just mentioned. He had so many calls.

They had like 30, 40 calls about the guy. He did have visible problems. He did. No, no. He's talking about the Vegas guy. Oh, the Vegas guy. I'm sorry. The Vegas guy.

Yeah, the Vegas guy. He may be an outlier, but I think like... You know, most mentally ill people are disabled. They're not... As a class, they are less violent than the rest of us. Mentally damaged. Mentally ill may be too much, but people are being damaged somehow. I have to say something about this.

Something is different. I did a whole special about the fact that I suffer from extreme depression, from anxiety. I take antidepressants every day. I have for many years. I am, by the technical classification, mentally ill. I take antidepressants every day. I have for many years. I am, by the technical classification, mentally ill. I don't need a gun. I shouldn't have a gun. I think it's really, really disgusting that there is very, you know, the NRA, in my mind, the one thing they're certainly doing

is pouring tons of money into their agenda. There are press releases that go out after every one of these shootings, mental illness is the problem. The president tweeted, this is not a gun problem, it's a mental illness problem, less than 24 hours after the shooting in Florida. This is a point people drive. Gun owners like to say, I'm a responsible gun owner who never killed anybody. Well, I'm a mentally ill person who's responsible. I've never killed anybody either. Of course you have to be mentally ill to shoot up a school. You also have to have a gun. So the

idea that the NRA leases the world with these press releases saying mental illness is the issue, while the Trump administration is also reducing money for mental health care, I agree with you. It is backwards. What I'm asking is why do we seem to have so many more people who want to do these things? Now maybe it's just the power of a copycat situation

where now it's on the radar and nobody ever thought of it and now it pops into everybody's mind immediately. I don't know. Because we don't deal with it. There's a rot within our country. The problem is

you can never get to the bottom of controlling the variety of ill-defined sociological problems that spit up, that produce people who will be conducive to carrying out those kinds of crimes.

What you can do is keep them from having the means to do it. You can mitigate it. You're not going to keep it. You can regulate it way better than that. It's an incredible low amount of regulation for the amount of damage that. We can mitigate it. You're not going to keep it. No, you can regulate it way better than that. But how much? It's an incredible low amount of regulation

for the amount of damage that a gun can cause. I agree with you, but don't get your hopes up of what the regulation will do. Here's what I would say. No hope. You ask the question,

why do other countries... Didn't work for drugs. You ask the question, why do other countries not have people want to do this? Drugs are banned. They're not regulated enough. My argument would be

other countries do have those people. They just have less access to guns and more access to mental health care. There's crazy people everywhere. I'm no expert on this, so I'm willing to say. I've heard things to the contrary. I think it's Sweden or certain countries in Europe where they do have a lot of gun ownership. Switzerland is the example that they use.

I get those two confused. But it's way more regulated than here. Well, they have like in Switzerland. All the SW countries. I think in Switzerland, they only get a certain amount of ammo. Yeah, it's more regulated than here. And it's certainly more regulated. Listen, I'm all for Northern European countries that have legendarily good health care,

which I have to assume means that there's also easier access to mental health care. Maybe you're right. Yeah, they had one mass shooting. Don't construe anything I'm saying. I'm no gun guy. I don't... They had one mass shooting. Don't construe anything I'm saying. I'm no gun guy. I don't want anybody to have a gun. I'd be happy taking guns away from everybody. Like, if they wanted to disarm everybody,

I'd be all for it. I'm not... I'm just saying... No, you're the antagonist. That's your job. I'm just saying that it's... Well, I... We have to yell about something, right?

Nothing is ever as easy as people seem to think it is. That's one thing I do not think is easy here in America. The ACLU. So you and I agree that they've kind of folded on this idea of protecting any speech at all. Well, they backed off from their initial position. And I'm also, like, the people like

Ben Shapiro or Charles Murray come speak at campuses, and now people are, and I'm, like, I want to send my kids to the university where these people do speak. What are they going to learn by hearing some people who are just going to tell them what they already believe? Challenge them.

Right. So you agree with me on that. This is nuts. I do. Look, I grew up in a liberal New York household. My father was a labor union activist. My mother's father was a labor union activist, my mother's father was a labor union activist, they all worshipped FDR. I didn't hear a contrary idea until I was in graduate school in Columbus, Ohio from anybody. My received wisdom was all, you know, I learned that it was ridiculous to be storing wheat in battleships off the coast of New Jersey while people in other countries were starving.

When I got to Columbus, Ohio. Dan thinks you should be able to have a battleship. Go ahead. I don't think. All right, Dan. No, but I have to clarify. It's a joke Dan dude but I have to clarify

that I also am not a gun person and I also could care less if people don't have guns but in the middle of a story yeah but you accuse me

of something that has special resonance given the conversation Dan thinks the constitution is not apparent from the constitution why you should not be able to own a battleship

fair? it is not readily apparent which is why I should not be able to own a battleship. Fair? It is not readily apparent, which is why I propose, and I say this again, a national referendum or national something to clarify... Dan, we have moved on. Well, the country has not moved on. There's a procedure called a constitutional convention. Before we can have a national referendum...

A constitutional convention, a referendum, clarifying the Second Amendment, and it may well be... Before you have a national referendum, learn the history. Well, okay, I'll learn the history, but also learn what a military weapon is, because an AR-15 is... All right, damn, please. So you're talking about being challenged.

So you would never have been challenged until you got to college or graduate school. Yeah, so then, you know, I was on a doctoral program in mathematics, and so there I am, and I got, you know, 20 or 30 guys, very smart, easily as smart as I am, in the program with me from all over the country. And I've never had a conversation, a political conversation, with anybody outside of New York in my life. And at some point—

You can say Goyim if you want, but go ahead. I say—at some point, I didn't even know that Protestants were the majority. There you go. I was right. I'm not kidding. I thought Jews and Catholics were the majority. You go out to Columbus and you find out that Jews and Catholics... What? What's a Jew? What's a Catholic? No, the food was different. Everything was different.

Irish Americans knew that Protestants were the majority. Yeah, we were well aware of it. They did. different. Irish Americans knew that Protestants were the majority. Yeah, we were well aware of it. Well aware of it. And I get into a conversation at one point about the surplus wheat problem. And this guy, who was also a mathematics doctoral candidate, was very

smart, very well informed, and started spewing out all of the economic reasons why it was right to keep the wheat and not put it on the market and give it to people who were starving. And I had no arguments against him for one very simple reason. I had never heard that argument before. That's right.

And I realized then, and it's been true ever since, that there is no parochialism so severe as New York liberal parochialism. And that is what we today call the blue bubbles on both coasts. We live in silos. We talk to ourselves. We like to make fun of the people in West Virginia and rural Alabama

who we say only talk to themselves. But we only talk to ourselves. I'm going to play in some soundtrack music for your speech just now, if you don't mind, in the actual podcast because it's stirring to me. I mean, do we all agree with what he's saying? We do. I remember... To a degree. Although I grew up in Northeastern Queens,

which I can assure you has slipped outside the blue bubble. It maybe never was in it. These dummy kids in these universities and these cowardly administrators shutting down every speaker that challenges them. What's so terrible? Just listen. Let them speak. I do remember the first time I ever drove cross-country,

it was eye-opening because I grew up in North Jersey as well, Northeast. And you get about, I mean, you only have to get like 90 minutes out of the New York metropolitan area and you're like, oh. I got to move on because we're almost out of time. Next, because this is the ACLU. Next thing. I want to also get to how Chris is doing on the new medication.

Okay, we'll get to it. I'm feeling good. No, we're going to talk about it. There was some new regulation where the Trump administration, and I don't know the details of it, decided that medical health practitioners who

as a matter of conscience didn't want to perform abortions would no longer have to do it. And the ACLU tweeted, we'll see you in court, Mr. President. And this shocked me. And then I read a little about it. For instance, a woman wrote here, a neonatologist wrote, the more I advance in my field of neonatology, the more it became the logical choice, I'm trying to read fast and I'm screwing it up, to recognize a developing fetus

for what it is, a fetus instead of some sort of subhuman form. It just became so obvious that these were just developing humans. So this is a woman who's working in this

and as a matter of conscience, doesn't feel that she can kill this child anymore, the way she feels about it. I say, how is it that the ACLU is arrogantly saying, we'll see when Cormac... She's no issue of the...

Well, well... Let me almost say, the same organization that will defend Muhammad Ali's right to not go and fight a conscientious objector, won't have to go and fight for his country if we're...

or take arms for his country if we're threatened. Would you raise the same question and do you think that neonatologist would raise the same question if we were talking about two seconds after conception? I don't know but I think there's a matter of

conscience here, which is what the ACLU should be concerned. Freedom of conscience. There were people who as a matter of conscience wouldn't let their kids go to school with black people. Right. Conscience does not settle the issue. We do draw lines.

But certainly... Here's the thing. If there is a pharmacist on 23rd Street who is so morally against contraception because he thinks that the only 23rd Street, who is so morally against contraception because he thinks that the only reason to have sex is

to bear children. And so it... That's God's command, and I cannot sell contraceptives. And he will not sell contraceptives. He doesn't have to sell those contraceptives. But the pharmacy does. And this woman, if she doesn't want to perform an abortion, she may not have to perform one, but the hospital she works at does.

I agree with you. The hospital has to. But she should have the right to not do it. And, I mean, you do agree with conscientious objection, right? You don't think you should force somebody. Now, of course, if everybody claimed conscientious objection status, we would have to disallow it. I think a lot of this conscientious objection stuff is a cover. People claim the conscientious right not to serve black people in their restaurants when the civil rights law was first up for grabs. People claimed a right

of conscience. The Muhammad Ali thing is irrelevant because Muhammad Ali affected nobody but himself. He did not, he was not claiming a conscientious right not to serve somebody.

He was claiming a conscientious right not to kill. Right, just like the woman in the hospital. Well, but that's why I asked you the question about two minutes after conception. Because the Supreme Court decision that provided the right of a woman to have an abortion made a distinction between the third trimester, the second trimester, and the third trimester. You know that's a ridiculous decision. No, it isn't a ridiculous decision because it's basically,

it basically falls on the question of that human life begins at a point where the developing fetus is capable of living outside the mother. But that's a moving target. Well, it's a moving target within limits.

But now, Dr. Glass, with all due respect, now, we talked about the Second Amendment, and you said, you know, that it was a ridiculous decision, and they misinterpreted the Constitution. That smells blood here. I just failed to see how you could then accept Roe v. Wade as anything other than just judicial lawmaking? Oh, no.

You are terminally confused about your analogies. First of all, you couldn't just walk away. I applaud you for getting back in the ring, Dan. I know that you're obsessed with your misinterpretation of the Second Amendment, but read the goddamn history

before you open your mouth again. Read the goddamn history of the Constitution. You can't handle the truth. You're out of order. I agree with Dan about Roe versus Wade, not about the Second Amendment. Why are you mad at me? You're pointing at me.

You're like, oh, you got back in the ring. As if I got my ass kicked. I'll get your ass kicked. Let me ask you two questions. You were mad at me because you couldn't handle him. He shut you down and now you're mad at me. He didn't shut me down. You interpreted it as that meeting shut down.

But I was here for the history. Now imagine they had guns. But dude. But dude. You guys need to be separated. You're yelling at me because you want to yell at him. I didn't do a thing to you. I don't want to yell at him because.

He's afraid to yell at me. I didn't do a thing to you. He's a nice man. I don't want to yell at him. I'm a nice man too. But when he said that the AR-15 was a military weapon and it clearly isn't. You didn't do a thing to you. He's a nice man. I don't want to yell at him. I'm a nice man, too. But when he said that the AR-15 was a military weapon, and it clearly isn't. You didn't say, oh, he kicked your ass. Oh, motherfucker.

He saw you down. I did say that. Guys, I was just saying. You're not defending me. I was quietly agreeing with everything he said. No, no. I said the AR-15 is not a military weapon, and he said it is. And I'm right.

You didn't defend me. This is like a guy who didn't stand up to his boss at work and now you're trying to come over and hit your wife. I never knew you were such a troublemaker. You're a troublemaker. I thought you guys were comedians. You're like fucking De Niro.

Dan, we gotta move on. Are you gonna take that spot? You're mad at me. What did I do? You're mad at me? I have no idea what I did. What did I do? Dan, we gotta move on. You agree with me about Roe vs. Wade. I agree with you about Roe vs. Wade.

Why you gotta shoot him in the foot, Dan? But more importantly, I believe, it's just surprising to me that the ACLU would inject itself into something as difficult as how a human being feels about whether they're killing someone or not. And I, and no matter if you agree with me or not, I still think that where we do respect.

The reason is you can't support contraception unless you inject yourself into that. That's exactly. No, we have to draw. That's exactly the problem. We have to draw lines in certain places, just like we couldn't allow everybody to claim consciousness. And what about if. Wait, wait, let me think. Just like we couldn't allow everybody to claim conscientious... Wait, wait, let me think. Just like we couldn't

allow everybody to claim conscientious objector status and we wouldn't have an army, we would have to then say, no, we're going to draw lines. And we do draw lines in every one of these civil liberties. But when a doctor says, you know, I've been doing this work and now I realize I... And she's an expert, not

Justice Blackmun, who had no idea, never seen an ultrasound. This woman who's dealing with it every day. Yeah, but she could have became a born-again Christian. It's not clear what to think. Listen, I had a baby. I've had women, I've gotten women pregnant and had abortions. You all know that.

I've had this on the show. However, our baby at 12 weeks, at 12 weeks, was sucking its thumb. And this is something which nobody contemplated when Roe vs. Wade came out. People really, and you know, maybe I had another thought. You know, the picture of this woman in the Vietnam, a little girl

in the Vietnam War, running, had a lot to do with turning the tide against the war. I remember years ago, people said, if we're going to have executions, we should show them on TV so people should see, people should understand what it is as an execution. I think the ACLU was sympathetic to that position. But liberals are very reluctant to any of these laws which

try to encourage the woman to see these ultrasounds before the abortions. And it seems to me it's the only time where we think actually seeing something is going to lead is not going to lead to a better understanding not going to lead to more insight into the act that they're committing but the truth is any parent knows when you see these ultrasounds of these three month old

whatever you want to call them this is beyond Justice Blackmun's ability to decide for the nation this is a matter of conscience whether you think it's okay three weeks three months, four months, five months. The question is who makes that decision? Right. So but for the the question is who makes that decision? And I'm going to and no, no.

I'm talking about the doctor performing the abortion. And I would think that wherever we can, we should always want to allow people their freedom of conscience until some point where we realize, you know, it just doesn't work this way. Society breaks down. We're going to have black people who can't get a hotel room, whatever it is. Do you remember the Hobby Lobby case? Yeah. You understand my argument.

It's hard. It's hard. A lot of these issues are hard. They're all hard, and they all involve drawing lines. All of them. There is not a constitutional right that issues are hard. They're all hard, and they all involve drawing lines. Right. All of them. There is not a constitutional right that isn't hard. You know, the First Amendment right to freedom of religion, the difference between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause

presents very difficult issues all the time. Right. You know, if it's the position of the Establishment Clause that the government cannot fund religion, what about the government saying, we're not going to give discount Metro cards to ministers or priests because that's funding them? No. That would be discriminating against them because of their religion.

Would you stop a national Christmas tree? Huh? If you could push a button, have no more national Christmas tree? Yes, I think that's an establishment of religion. I think it's an imposition by the government of the religious beliefs of some upon people who don't hold those beliefs. And my position on that, and then we get to

your medication, but I think you're right, but I think we should allow it anyway. I think at some point... Well, we do allow it anyway. But I think it's right to allow it anyway. And it's not, you know... I think that... But...

Going back to what you said earlier about when the nation... There isn't a Jewish kid in the country when I was growing up in the 40s that didn't feel marginalized and vaguely threatened

by the celebration of Christmas by the government. Well, you and my father are a very similar generation. Well, I'll speak as a Jewish kid that grew up a few decades later. Not too many. And he said the same thing.

A few decades later, we love Christmas. That's when they turned Hanukkah from a minor holiday into a major one. It might well have been different in the 40s, but I can tell you now, not just because we get a couple of weeks off from school, we love the songs.

We love... First of all, if you've never heard Stevie Nicks' version of Silent Night, do yourself a favor and listen to it. 40 years earlier, it was an incitement to hatred. Listen, we're over time. I want to make my last thing, and then you can talk about it. Stevie Nicks, Silent Night. He's going to be busy looking up the history of the Second Amendment.

I do intend to do my research. One second. You said something very interesting before about how the Second Amendment. I do intend to do my research. One second. You said something very interesting before about how the Second Amendment started, which was that in those days, each state was really the center of power. And each state lived much more than today how it

wanted to live and made its own laws. And we've gotten very, very far away from that as a nation. And I think that we paid a big price for that in terms of being able to live as a nation. And that's why I, as much as I think in principle a lot of these things are right, I think practically I'm always saying to myself, you know what, just let Mississippi live within certain limits the way Mississippi wants to live. If Mississippi doesn't want to allow abortion, let them not allow abortion. What about if they want to have slavery?

No, I said within limits. Well, who decides that? Well, slavery is in the Constitution. Yeah, but that's people's rights. That's people's rights. No, it's abolished in the Constitution. It is not. The 13th Amendment didn't abolish slavery?

Well, the 13th Amendment did, but before the 13th Amendment, before the Civil War. Right, but I'm saying if they want to have a Christmas tree, if they want to say a prayer before school. Who's the they? I feel like a lot of people living in the Midwest and the South feel like, I wish these fucking New York Jews would keep out of their fucking law books and stay out of our lives. The reason they feel that way is because they're the majority and they get to say what they celebrate. If they weren't the majority, they wouldn't feel that way. But they also say what you

say, which is, this is the way it was when the country started. If it was wrong, they would have said so then. They did. They're changing the rules on us. They did. Okay. We can talk about it more. We're out of time, so go ahead. Ask Chris about it. Well, first of all, I want to say that I do intend to do my research on the Second Amendment. I will warn you, however, that my research

is thorough research and it may... And not a moment too soon, I might add. It may not be... I can only say that if it was as clear and unambiguous as you've said, hard to imagine the Supreme Court would have decided otherwise, because I assume they're also educated on the Second Amendment, but I will look into that.

Yes, but they're not intellectually honest. It was five to four, and Scalia wrote the majority opinion. The same guy who threw the election to Bush in Bush v. Gore when he wouldn't allow the state Supreme Court to regulate its own laws, despite the fact that that had been his mantra for decades. All right, Dan, can we talk to Chris about it? All right, now. I also want to say—

And the Supreme Court also once upheld the constitutionality of slavery. You can't settle the argument by citing what the Supreme Court. I can't settle the argument by citing the Supreme Court. I also can't settle the argument by citing Ira Glass, which is why. Glazer. Right. That's because Ira Glass is not me. Ira Glass.

You can't settle it by citing me. But I will settle it by doing my own research, and rest assured it will be very thorough. Okay. I want to say... If there's five justices who voted one way in a Supreme Court decision, why is one of them the swing vote in this case? And why was Scalia the one who swung it? Well, he wrote the majority. Oh, he wrote the majority.

Okay, go ahead. I also want to say, whatever I did to make you so mad, I do apologize. It was never my intent. Well, here's what you did. You assumed that I was getting my ass kicked in the argument. Nothing is decided until I've done my research and can come back and confirm or deny. We have a few more minutes to wrap it up. Okay.

We want to talk about Chris Gethardt's mental health. Yes, go ahead. He is a gentle, law-abiding mental case. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. And what are you taking these days? I'm taking Lamictal and Welbutrin.

Lamictal. This sounds hardcore. Like, not your everyday... It's actually less hardcore. The most hardcore I've ever been on was Risperdal. That was an anti-psychotic

that I was on for two years. You see what I'm dealing with, folks? I'm dealing with a full-on psycho. Oh, that's... No, that's despicable what you just did. He took you down on reason. You're like a wrestling bad guy. You don't expect him to change now, do you?

He's like a vet. He's like a rowdy, rowdy piper. He's being a heel. Never apologize for that. This guy's insulting me. He's never pronounced my name correctly one time. I never get mad. I never get mad.

Chris Gethard, right? Gethard. You've been saying Gethard. I think I might have said Gethard. That's the correct German pronunciation. Really? Yes. Do your research.

Yes. By all means. Are you feeling better? He knows I'm kidding with him. Obviously. No, he doesn't know you're kidding. A stand-up comedy is the one place where being mentally disturbed is a compliment. You show me a stand-up comedy.

It's actually a job requirement. Thank you. Thank you. And the first thing we've agreed on all night. The fact is, if I said you were mentally sound, that would be a terrible insult to you. Yeah. Because you can't be funny and be mentally sound. We have to go.

Chris, do you want to say anything else? Thank you so much for having me. I hope that when we move on to the next phase of our night that there's no awkwardness here because I think we all just got caught up in something, right? Exactly right. Exactly right. Chris Gethard, watch him on True Television. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. Comedy television network, True TV. My show comes back March 20th. March 20th. What's it called? The Chris Gethard Show. Just remember, never apologize to somebody who's been abusing you. Thank you so much. Good night, everybody.

Thank you so much. Cue the music.