The David Knight Show - INTERVIEW — Only Military Should Have Guns? Pentagon Takes Gun Rights from Soldiers

Episode Date: March 3, 2023

Guy Relford, The Guy Gun Podcast, joins to cover the gamut of where our gun rights are under attack — and victories.Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here:SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation through Mail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

welcome back and joining us now is guy ralphard he has a podcast the gun guy and uh tell us where your website is or other places where people can find you a guy sure well um it's actually a live radio show uh on wibc in indianapolis but then the show is then posted as a podcast. It's on the Gun Guy page on wibc.com. It's also on iTunes and all the usual places for podcasts these days. But we broadcast live on Saturdays, 5 to 7, and then the podcast is posted soon after that. That's great.

That's great. Yeah, let's talk about what is happening in the overall picture, because that's your specialty is what's happening with the second amendment and with guns. And we've had an interesting thing happen this week that a lot of us were surprised to see happen because it's very rare for a politician to get the boot in Chicago, but things got so bad there with crime that they, Lori Lightfoot came in a distant third. And so she immediately came out swinging, bragging about what she had done to take guns off the street. But they didn't take off the crime off the street, did it?

Well, exactly. But you're right. It's really noteworthy, David, because this is the first Chicago mayor to lose an election forelection in 30 years, I mean, in a generation. And that tells you things had to be pretty severe for the political machinery there in Chicago to not protect Lori Lightfoot. But it actually, I think, provides some glimmer of hope to other cities around the country in that, notwithstanding the firm grip that the Democrat Party has on that city and the progressive politics that overwhelm that city, the voters clearly looked at the situation in Chicago and notably, and I think most importantly,

the out-of-control crime, murder rate, robberies, carjackings right down the line. And they said, this is not okay. We're going to set aside partisan politics, perhaps. And not that they'd ever elect a Republican in Chicago, but at least they were willing to boot an incumbent where the challengers there ran clearly on a law and order campaign and a support the police as opposed to defund the police um a support the police uh platform and and that that resonated with voters to the point where Lori Lightfoot did not even finish in the top two uh so as to participate in a runoff she was a somewhat distant third. And I think other cities around,

whether it's Baltimore or Newark, Philadelphia, right here in Indianapolis, even though Indiana is a very red state, solidly voted for Trump in the last two elections, Indianapolis, where I'm located on the north side, is very, very Democrat and Democrat controlled. And we have a very liberal mayor and we have a very liberal prosecutor. And I did a show here this week talking about does the Chicago experience give us some hope that folks are willing to reject these liberal policies that just result in rampant crime and to say, this is not okay. We're going to set aside politics and start looking for who's willing to lead a city in a way that makes the citizens safer. Yeah, that's right. She got so desperate at one point, she put out a call for people to

loan her police from other jurisdictions because she'd gotten rid of so many police and the guy who just edged her out of the runoff, some guy named Brandon. I said, Oh, let's go Brandon. But what I've seen now, I didn't know anything about the two guys who came in ahead of her, but what I've heard from Brandon is he may be even more leftist radical than Lori Lightfoot. So they may be getting, but he came in quite a bit behind the other individual. I don't know where that guy is, but it's not just the police either. It's not just getting rid of the police.

It's the crazy courts. It's the zero bail stuff and letting people out. Here's, here's an article from, um, bearing arms. Fourth time is the charm for Chicago man busted for illegal gun possession. She's bragging about taking guns off the street guy, and yet the courts are turning people out over and over again for the same crime. The recidivism of these people getting out on zero bail because we've got these Soros district attorneys putting people out. It's a design to create chaos. And that, I guess, is one of the reasons why I was surprised that she lost, because this is really where the radical left is right now they just want chaos and whether they can do it by

defunding the police or by deconstructing the justice system and you know the courts and the rest of the stuff and letting the criminals out on the streets uh catch and release you know yeah yeah exactly what we refer to as the revolving door of the criminal justice system. And for instance, I had on my show here recently the head, the president of the Fraternal Order of Police here for central Indiana. And he talked about how frustrated his officers are that they actually put their lives on the line to find, confront, disarm, and arrest violent criminals. That's right. And invariably repeat violent criminals, often out on bond for pending charges with a ridiculously low bond, even though they have a history of criminal convictions and violent criminal convictions.

And so, you know, his officers put their lives on the line every day to find these people to put them in jail. And then they find them right back out on the street the next day, literally the next day. And all of a sudden, now, not only are they out of jail, but now they've got a beef. They've got a beef against who may have reported them to police, who may have cooperated with police, and they've got a beef against officers involved, but they're very likely to see you in their neighborhoods again. So not only have you not taken a violent criminal ultimately off the street, you've incentivized him to go out and potentially take revenge on any number of people. And the statistics are amazing. We've seen numbers, something like over 80% of homicide victims. I'm just talking about the Indianapolis area, but I guarantee you this is true across the city, whether you're talking about Philadelphia or Chicago or Baltimore or Newark or LA.

Something like 80%, not only of the suspects in murder cases, have a history of violent criminal convictions, but to almost an equal degree, over 80%, the victims have a history of violent criminal convictions as well. And so what you're doing is by spitting these people right back out of the criminal justice system, they're not only available to commit more violent crimes, they're also available to be victims of violent crimes because they're caught up in a gang dispute or a drug war or whatever it might be. And so by not keeping these people off the streets, you're simply increasing the problem, sometimes exponentially. Yeah, that's right. It is truly amazing, and I think it was designed to create chaos.

I think that's one of the reasons why you see this massive funding. It's amazing how much money was put into a lot of these local district attorney races. Millions of dollars given for a local race, and especially even for the state attorney general level, even more money put in by these organizations because they want to have chaos. They just want to burn everything down, tear everything down. They want people afraid, and it's going to cause that type of fear can be used by these demagogues to do all kinds of illegal things that attack our liberties.

You know, as they have exploited this stuff in the past, and of course we've seen it began in the Obama administration talking about Operation Chokepoint, where they were going to try to shut down the purchasing of guns and ammunition. Now we see that's about to roll out. Discover is going to start doing that next month, using the tools that were pushed in in New York by New York State to say, we want to have a code that's going to identify these gun stores. I'm sure this has been on your radar and it looks like it's not just Discover is it? No that's exactly right and what has happened is an international organization for standardization

has created even a new credit card code that will be used for purchases at gun stores. Historically, if you go in and use your debit card or your credit card in a gun store, it comes up as general merchandise or sporting goods on the classification for that expense based on the current credit card codes. Under pressure from liberal politicians and anti-Second Amendment groups. And here we're talking about Moms Demand Action and the Brady campaign and the Gifford Center and all the usual suspects. This International Organization for Standardization has created a new credit card code specifically for gun stores. And this is fascinating to me because they say, well, we want to track what are potentially suspicious purchases that might be able to help us identify and head off a mass shooting. And what makes no sense in that justification, David, is that my guns in at home to be a safe, secure, responsible gun owner, that just shows $4,000 in a gun store. It doesn't tell anybody what I bought.

So they're going to say, oh, look, Guy Relford spent $4,000 in a gun store. We better go investigate him because he might be the next mass shooter. Of course, I can buy $4,000 worth of T-shirts that I want to go out and resell from a gun store. And it doesn't give me any information that might legitimately be used to track suspicious activity or to find a potential mass shooter. What it does is it gives credit card companies the ability to say, oh, wait, you're using your credit or your debit card at a gun store. We have an anti-gun policy here. We're going to start declining those authorizations and those purchases. And we're going to start and use the term Operation Chokepoint. And it was their term. We didn't create it. It was the Obama administration that said we can essentially

destroy the firearms industry by going after them financially, by having banks decline to do business with them, close checking accounts, refuse to do credit card processing. And now they have a credit card code where they know anytime you use your credit card, if you're at a gun store, don't be at all surprised, because I think this is the ultimate objective, that you're going to see those purchases simply declined. Yeah. And we've already seen that in a couple of instances from the very beginning of it. Exactly.

Yeah. Exactly. I had something I called a gun shop roundtable on my show here. It was probably over a year ago. And I had six local gun shop owners sitting around in the studio. Everybody had their own microphone. And we were talking about the challenges that they faced. And I said, well, I've got one for you. Who here has had a credit card processor or a bank refuse to do business with you simply because you're a gun shop?

Every single one of them, hand flew up in the air. Some of them multiple times, some of them even received a certified check in the mail from their bank saying, we're closed to your account. Here are are the balances we no longer choose to do business with you have a nice day and and they called me said what I got a perfect credit rating and I'm you know I don't I I don't have any suspicious transactions why are you doing this we simply don't want to do business with you it's all coming back to Operation chokepoint they can destroy the firearms industry if these people don't have the support, the assistance, the availability of financial institutions. And of course, they're doing the same thing to the First Amendment as well, not just the Second Amendment. They did this to me after my show was about five months old. PayPal cut me off. PayPal

and Venmo the same day. I called them up. I said, so what's going on? What's the problem? There's no suspicious transactions. Well, we can't tell you. We won't tell you what's going on. And so this is the same type of thing. They're going to come after the source. They're going to come after the store. They're going to come after the speaker to try to purge you out, use that kind of corporate economic warfare against us. I've got a listener here on Rumble from Australia. He knows about gun control and gun confiscation harps. Oh, my God.

He says, don't let them make any firearm laws. Do not consent to any unlawful rulings. Fight them all the way. Second Amendment is on your side. I think that's exactly right, Guy. You know, there's talk about here in Tennessee, there's been a bill that has been introduced. We don't know what the status is or whether or not it's going to pass. But what it would do is it would require the state to examine any new law for constitutionality, any court ruling, any treaty, and any regulatory rules. So it covers everything, right? Because we know that most of the stuff is really coming after us with regulatory rules or with court decisions. And now they're going to start bringing in international treaties.

But that's the type of thing. We have to understand that at the state level and the local level, we need to nullify some of this stuff. It's too hard to control this at the federal level, I think. We need to start nullifying it at the state level. Because they're using these corporations, I call it the deputized state. They like to talk about the deep state. These people have been deputized by the government. They're doing the will and the bidding of the government, and it just gives them plausible

deniability to use the corporations to do what they're specifically prohibited from doing, and they don't have to worry about it. They let the corporation do it. Exactly. And consider the two things that we've discussed already, David, just in this conversation, the fact that the left simply wants to create chaos. They want to have dangerous criminals on the street. They want as much disruption as they can possibly create. And at the same time, deprive the law-abiding citizen of their ability to defend themselves.

I mean, look at those things together and then so what what is our alternative if if the if the if the second amendment is essentially nullified because uh the gun industry goes out of business uh guns aren't available anymore uh you know i just turned 21 or in some states 18 i want to buy a gun i can't buy a gun because they're not available that's the ultimate goal when it comes to operation choke point then there's chaos in the street they're violent criminals excuse me running around everywhere i can't defend myself what does that put me in the position of doing it it puts me in a position of being dependent on the government that's right the government will step in and save me. The government creates chaos.

It deprives me of my ability to defend myself and then turns around and says, don't worry, we're here to help you. Yeah. Like Lori Lightfoot. Like Lori Lightfoot. Yeah. Exactly right. And that is, that is as obvious as the nose on my face.

As a matter of fact, there was a picture we showed yesterday. We talked about her losing and she had her mask on, you know, pandemic stuff. She had on like some latex gloves that were yellow. And then, you know, for Halloween, she puts on like a little Robin mask. And I said that whole crime fighting superhero thing just didn't work out for her. Did it? Well, certainly did not.

Well, you know, I think it's interesting, you know, one way to do this again, I talked about Tennessee and how they are looking at nullifying anything that's a treaty a regulation a court decision a law that's unconstitutional but then you know when they come after us with these um the deputized state the corporations i think this is the correct approach this is a florida bill that would levy a ten thousand000 fine on any credit card companies who are acting as deputies for gun control. I think that's the way that you approach it for that. So I think we need to have nullification of things that are coming directly from the government. But when they start to use these corporations to take away our free speech, corporations to take

away our Second Amendment rights. And again, they're not rights that come from the Second Amendment. They're rights that come from God that are specifically mentioned in the Second Amendment that you will protect those and not take them away. I think when it comes to that, you have to start using some kind of economic fines for the corporations that attack you. I think that's very important. We need to understand that for both the First Amendment and the Second Amendment. Don't you agree? I agree very much. And, you know, as someone who believes in small government and the hands-off of the private sector when it comes to the government and laissez-faire economics, you know, I'm conflicted a little bit on this subject because

we've had bills here in Indiana that have said, okay, you know, let's regulate these decisions that financial institutions can make. And part of me says, yes, because I want that protection of the Second Amendment. I want that protection of the firearms industry. And part of me says, wait a minute, we've got the government telling private industry how to operate and how do we navigate that how do how do how do i how do i pursue those kind of policies and not be a hypocrite when it comes to small government and and here's here's the compromise we that we've reached on a couple of bills now the banking lobby lobby i'll tell you people talk about how strong the second amendment lobby is make no mistake the banking lobby is a big scary organization with a

lot of resources and a lot of money oh yeah and they have a lot of influence but at all levels federal and state and but what we came up with last couple of legislators legislatures is a bill that says okay if you have these discriminatory policies, discriminatory against Second Amendment-related businesses, you can have whatever policy you want, but the state of Indiana will not reward you by doing business with you as the state of Indiana. So we will not enter into any contracts with you. We will not use your credit card processing services. And we're talking about billions and billions. We will not allow you to participate in the administration of our pension funds.

There are billions of dollars involved. And so they've said, you can have whatever policy you want. You can do business with whomever you'd like, but so can we as the state of Indiana. We will cut you off financially, which could mean, again, millions and millions or tens or hundreds of millions of lost profits to these companies. I like that because that way I can walk that fine line between saying I'm small government and let's don't interfere with private industry. At the same time, make your own decision, financial institution, because we're going to financially punish you because just like your decisions have economic consequences for your customers or people you declined to do business with.

Well, your decision has economic consequences now for you to the extent you want to do business with the state of Indiana. I like that. I like that bill. The problem is we can't get it out of committee and get it to the floor of either the Senate or the House here in Indiana because a banking lobby has been very successful in killing it. Yeah, yeah, that's true. And then, of course, if you were, they could easily pull it back the next administration. So the thing is, you know, I look at this,

and I've been there, you know, what we're looking at with the gun thing. I've been there for a long time with the censorship stuff. And for the longest time, even before we had the Twitter files released by Musk and everybody was going through and saying, look at this, here's the emails. They're telling everybody who to shut down. This was coming from the government. And, and, but for years, my wrestling with their censorship stuff goes back to 2018. So for five years, I've been in this fight. And, uh, actually before I actually had the first thing I got taken down on YouTube was, um, talking about the federal reserve, the banking industry, right?

They took that video down. I had some clips from It's a Wonderful Life, and it was on the 100th anniversary of the creation of the Federal Reserve, and it was called It's a Wonderful Lie. And so I used a couple little clips in fair use. It was a very small part of the video. I got those clips from the entire movie that had been up for years and had over a million views on it at the time back in 2013. And they said, well, you violated copyright on this.

That's what they came back with. We knew what that was about. But when you look at this, and I've been fighting this free speech thing for quite a while. And I remember Reason and Libertarian Think Tank as well as Cato Institute, another libertarian, Heritage Foundation conservatives would say, no, we don't want to tell corporations what they can do. You would have people like John Stossel say, they're censoring me. I hate the fact that they're censoring me, but I don't want the government coming in and telling them what they must do.

But the reality was that we knew that they were doing it at the behest of the government. We knew that they were, you know, the government was the hidden hand that was directing all of this stuff. But until the Twitter files came out, they would continue down that path. And that was the thing that got them to turn. And so when that came out, they said, yeah, that's right. You know, that's, that's, they were just acting on behalf of the government. And I think the same thing is happening when we look at the second amendment stuff. I think the government has a duty to protect. So Declaration of Independence says that we alter or we abolish the government when it attacks our rights. We create the government to protect our rights. And so if we've got corporations that are coming after us, and we need to understand that

corporations are not a human. We have these rights because they're given to us by God. Corporations are incorporated. They are an artificial creation. They have been given privileges and licenses by the state. They shouldn't have the equivalence of humans. And so when I look at it, I think that the government really does have a duty to protect. But the reality is, is that they see themselves as having one customer and that's not you and I, that's the government. That's part of this ESG thing. And that's been

going on for a long time, whether you're talking about speech or the vaccines, the pandemic speech, or we're talking about gun control, it always comes back. They only want to please the government. They're only working for the government, I think. I think those are excellent, excellent points, David. And part of the rationale there is that, you know, I was talking about, hey, let's don't tell private industry how to operate if we're going to be true to small government principles. But your point is perfectly made in the sense that when private industry is no longer acting as private industry and they're acting as a tool of the government then suddenly they shouldn't they lose the protections we'd otherwise give them as private industry and shouldn't constitutional principles and protections that apply as to them so people

people can say well you know twitter can say whatever it wants or do business with ever whoever it wants it can cut off off ties with whatever industry it wants. And the Constitution doesn't apply. First Amendment doesn't apply because they're a private company, not the government. Second Amendment protections don't apply. Well, hold on. If you're merely acting as a tool of the government, then why should you be treated any different than the government? And that's why I really like your point. And it's a very, very important one. And that's where I think the Twitter files that you mentioned were really a game changer in the sense that a lot of us said, well, Twitter's just doing this at the behest of the Democrat Party or, you know, the banking industry is just doing this well what the twitter files did is it came out and it told us that that we weren't paranoid all along that we weren't uh you know you know part of a conspiracy theorist

theory theory uh is as part of any of this what we suspected all along was really true that's right and the government through the democrat party was essentially directing twitter and and what its policy should be how is that not really to your point? How is that not a powerful, powerful argument for why Twitter should lose any protections that a private entity has if they're not acting as a private entity, they're acting as an arm of the government? I agree. Yeah.

Yeah. For the longest time, a lot of people say, well, you know, look, I, it's just these people in Silicon Valley, they're all Democrats and they all think like that. And they genuinely believe in gun control. They genuinely believe that your hateful speech and all this other kind of stuff. No, they were being given instructions. They were just active.

They were the deputized state. Let's talk a little bit about permitless carry, because we have Nebraska is talking about, they're debating this. It's gone a couple of days. I don't know what the current status of it is. Uh, but there's been some, some laws had been introduced in other states. So you have a sense of where we are at this point.

I think it was like 25 or so states that had, uh, gone to permitless carry. Uh, maybe more now. I don't really know where the status. Do you, do you have a current tally of where we are on that? I do. We're, uh, Indiana last year was the 24th state i was very proud to be directly involved in that fight my organization here on my pin is the 2a project and we were right out front fighting for constitutional carry i actually assisted

legislators in writing our bill it was the 10th year that we've been fighting for constitutional carry or permitless carry we finally got it done then after indiana passed it alabama passed it which was the 25th state we've not seen more join the ranks yet this legislative uh year but hey it's just the first week of march so we're hopeful we we see it nebraska we hopeful we see it we're hopeful we see it uh governor de sanisantis in Florida keeps saying he'll sign it if they get it passed. So we're hoping to see that. They haven't convened their legislative session yet. So yeah, there's rumors that they might do it in Florida as well. They did it in

Tennessee not too long ago, not too many years ago. That's where I live now. And so yeah, there's a, so we're at about 50%, which is right, because that really is a constitutional carry. And I think the Supreme Court is kind of lined up along that, you know, but we have people still coming out saying you have no right to carry. That's not, I don't know what they think the words actually mean, but, you know, they, they make all these arguments. We got David Hogg coming out, trying to tell us that, you know, it was just for the militia. I've heard that from kids for the longest time.

I mean, we had a business at one point in time. We hired a really good kid, smart kid, and he was salutary, number two in his class. And he was telling me what they were teaching him in high school, and he was buying it at the time, you know, about the militia being the National Guard and all this other kind of stuff. And so now David Hogg is doing this. I mean, he's reverted back to a high school level propaganda understanding of the Second Amendment.

It's truly amazing to see it, isn't it? Oh, exactly. And, you know, I don't even engage in those debates anymore, David. I'll call my radio show or I'll be on social media and somebody will make those arguments. And I do. radio show or i'll be on social media and somebody will make those arguments and i do i have kind of a running bibliography of now decisions and quotations from the u.s supreme court if somebody says well what militia are you in unless you're in the national guard the second amendment doesn't apply to you i say you you you need uh to read the heller decision from 2008 which very clearly spells out that you and i and the common man

general citizen is the militia in the 1791 sense yeah when the second amendment was ratified um it was the it was the common citizen it was everyone it is the body of the people to put it in the words of george washington um i don't have to debate that with you the supreme court has determined that it's it's you know it's right there in a decision you want to say the supreme court's wrong awesome but i'm not going to sit here and defend something that's now settled law in the united states the idea that there's no right to carry a gun outside the home and there were some federal circuits that had that had ruled that way uh the ninth circuit uh most famously most recently as well just said no there's no right to carry a firearm outside the home well a New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin

just last term of this Supreme Court and I really really like this Supreme Court for reasons that are obvious they came out and they said no what's bear mean bear means carry uh clearly that doesn't mean carry from your living room to your bathroom uh that means carry where law-abiding citizens you know are going to be which includes out in the public and that and for that reason set aside new york's incredibly restrictive licensing scheme that says well government officials get to decide who has a proper reason and a sufficient need, get that, sufficient need to exercise a constitutional freedom. And that was New York system. That's been Hawaii's, it's been California's, and a number of other states. And the Supreme Court of the United States said, no, if some government bureaucrat gets to scratch his chin and decide who does and doesn't have

a constitutional right that's not a right that's a government bestowed privilege that's not how our constitution works that's not how our bill of rights works specifically so they set that aside and now all those what we call may issue states are having to re-examine but again that's now settled law that we don't have to debate that there's no split out there of authority which there was until last year there is a right to carry outside the home and that's even where you know i love using the term constitutional carry and it's funny because i was testifying for our bill for permitless carry last

year and the the chairman of our senate judiciary committee one senator liz brown even though she's a republican is very very very hostile to Amendment issues. She's very hostile to constitutional carry. And I was testifying, as I have for years, trying to get this thing passed until we finally did. But I was testifying, and I referred to it two or three times as constitutional carry. And she said, well, excuse me, she goes, are you saying that any requirement for a license or a permit is unconstitutional? And I said, no. I said, a may issue system is unconstitutional. But a licensing system across the board has been upheld, including right here in Indiana,

by our appellate courts, because it's a shall issue system. If you're eligible, you get your license. And she goes, well, if you're not making the argument that a licensing scheme is unconstitutional, then you shouldn't be calling this constitutional carry because the system we have now is constitutional. And I sort of chuckled and I said, well, Senator, I understand your point. But the idea behind constitutional carry is that the constitution, not only of the United States, but the state of Indiana, what our constitution in Indiana says is the people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state, period, end of story. Very short, very sweet. I always say it's elegant in its simplicity.

I said, if the second amendment says what it says, not that I have a right to bear arms, and our own Indiana constitution says I have a right to bear arms, then the Constitution is my license. And while the state can impose a shall issue system if it wants to, I'm here to tell you that as a matter of policy, we shouldn't want to. And that's what constitutional carry is all about, because the Second Amendment should occupy the same status as every other constitutional right. I don't need a license or permit to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures or to post something on the internet. And so we simply raise the Second Amendment back up to a position of equal stature

with the other constitutional freedoms. That's why it's called constitutional freedom because the Constitution is my license. I shouldn't have to beg the government for a license to do what the Constitution says I already have a right to do. That's right and uh she didn't have much to say after that but but that's the but that that's the fundamentally what we're talking about and that's why it's been so strong people say you know we have a lifetime license here in india well guy don't you have a lifetime license

yes why have you been fighting so hard for constitutional carry for 10 years why you put so much time and effort on your own nickel and And I said, because I want to live in a state that recognizes the Second Amendment on par as having equal status with every other constitutional freedom. That's where I want to live, and that's what we finally made happen, and I hope we see more and more states join the 25. You're right, and my problem is that the Democrats want to give it equal status with the other ones.

They want to bring the other ones down to nothing. Right. Good point. They want to bring everything down, level it all down to zero. You know, they want they want zero emissions. They want zero rights. They want zero liberty. That's a really good point. Yeah. You know what? I'm surprised someone sitting there didn't say one of the Democrats sit there and say, you know what, we ought to start issuing a license that you need in order for the police not to be able to kick your door in or have a warrant. Yeah, that's a great point. Well, I mean, they're talking about licenses for people to engage in journalism

and all the rest of this stuff. The same people who are out there saying, well, we're going to tell you what you can and cannot carry. That's what I like about constitutional carry, about permitless carry, is that it really goes on offense in terms of taking things there. You know, most of the time we're on defense and we say, well, you know, they come up with some proposal to gradually cut away our rights. It's always a, you know, an iterative process of infringement. And I think that's why they use that word in the second amendment, that in my opinion, any regulation of our rights to keep and bear arms is going to be an infringement. So they, they keep coming up with these little niggling rules about stuff.

And that's the way they replied to the Bruin decision. The New York comes out and says, well, we have these special areas that we have to protect. And of course you do have this in your previous court decisions. And so we can define all these places as sensitive areas and you're not going to be allowed to carry and we'll make everything a sensitive area, you know? So they, they come up with these little workarounds with it, uh, to infringe on things. But, and so we usually were putting out these fires that the Democrats are, are, you know, setting fire to the bill of rights in various places. We're stomping it out, you know, but this particular case, we take the constitution, we put it right in their face. And that's what I

really like is the permit list carry and the constitutional carry. That's absolutely right. But, you know, we've got people like Keith Overman now just saying, well, there's absolutely nothing that allows you to own a gun. It's just absolutely insane and detached from reality. But that's the world that we live in. You know, there's a detachment from reality about everything. We can't explain to people what genders are. I don't know if we're going to explain to them what a Second Amendment is.

Well, good point. But a lot of times when I link back the writing of the Second Amendment and the motivation, the incentive of the founders to enshrine the Second Amendment rights, the right to bear arms in the Constitution, I go back. You mentioned the Declaration of the founders to enshrine the Second Amendment rights, the right to bear arms in the Constitution. You know, I go back, you mentioned the Declaration of Independence. I refer to that document so often because, you know, what is it? It's really, in my mind, the groundwork, the foundations, the principles that then were used to create the legal document, which forms our government which is the constitution

but to me the declaration of independence throws out and defines very beautifully the theme of our government and and i think that's very important and when it talks about unalienable rights um and uh that that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men exactly as you referred to earlier but but when it where it talks about unalienable rights and it talks about life and liberty to start off and pursuit of happiness, obviously, after that. But where it says life and liberty, I always say on the Second Amendment issues, I said, if I have an unalienable right, first of all, what's unalienable mean? It means it can't be taken away from me particularly by the government if if but but it can't be taken away from me generally it's like as you mentioned something given to me by god as part of uh nature's laws and nature's god

um but but if it's unalienable how can i not have a right to protect if i'm if i'm denied the means to protect my life then how do i ever have a right to life to begin with if someone can simply bigger than me or stronger than me or or armed when i'm not uh or there's more of them and less of me if they if they on at their whim can deny me of my life then how did i ever have a right to life in the first place? And liberty, if I have an unalienable, inherent, given by God right to liberty, then how can the government deprive me of my liberty and also at the same time deny me any ability to secure it and to fight for it and to stand up for it with other like-minded people. I mean, if the government can deprive me of my liberty on a whim and I have no capacity to stand up and defend myself and defend my liberty, then how did I ever have a right to begin with,

much less an unalienable right? That's what makes rights unalienable, which is the capacity to protect and defend them. And that's why the very next words, and you've already mentioned it here in this discussion, that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. But when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it

and establish new government, and it goes on from there. And that all fits together so beautifully to me in terms of the theme of our government the theme of the the system of government created by our constitution and why they put the second amendment so high on the list for the bill of rights because you can't protect any of the things that we set our priorities uh for our way of life and our and our system of government if we can't stand up and defend them and the second amendment is why that's there. Absolutely. Right.

Yeah. You know, as you're talking about declaration of independence, I remember when I was a student and they had us memorize the opening of the declaration of independence, but it's only the first half of that paragraph. Right. And then they stopped there and they don't have you, you know, learn the second part that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men and so forth and so on. Right.

And when they become destructive, you alter or abolish those governments. They didn't have us memorize that. I was just happy as a student that I didn't have any more to memorize. And I never really paid attention to that until the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution became important to me as an adult. And it wasn't because they were trying to go easy on us. I mean, they made us memorize the entire Gettysburg Address. Right. And it wasn't because they were trying to go easy on us. I mean, they made us memorize the entire Gettysburg Address, right? But for the Declaration of Independence, there's just that first introduction, the first half of it, and not the purpose of government.

They didn't want you to see that part of it there. So, yeah, it was kind of interesting. I think I smell a rat. I just used it here recently, a big problem that I had, and this is in the context of constitutional carry, not last year when we finally got it passed, but in previous years, we had a big problem with the Republican caucus in our Indiana Senate who would go back behind closed doors in these caucus meetings that there's no public vote taken, there's no press coverage, no recordings, it's all completely secret. Well, the Republicans have a super majority in both the House and the Senate in Indiana, but they would go back into these caucus meetings where it's literally all secret, and the bill would be alive when it went back

there behind closed doors, and it would be dead when it came out. But not one of us who had, our senator in that room has any idea what they said or did or how they voted um we have no idea and i was i was railing about this and i still do on occasion uh on on the radio and and i got called out by a couple of senators and said god well you know our discussions need to be secret because you know we have to protect our members and and and you can't have a free discussion um you know if it's all public and I said yeah let me and I recited what you just did on the Declaration of Independence and I said consent of the governor I said if if I don't like what you said or did or how you voted in that private caucus meeting or I wouldn't like it if I knew what it was okay how do I either

grant or withhold my consent to you continuing to represent me by voting for or against you in the next election how do I how do I give you the consent of me the governed if I don't know what you did on my behalf this private caucus meeting BS is completely inconsistent with a, with a fundamental principles of this government, which is for me to be able to grant or withhold my consent, the consent of the governed. I have to know what you're doing. And when you do it in private behind closed doors, you deprive me of that. Right. And that I, and I will never support that. I will oppose that with every breath in me. No, you're absolutely right. Yeah. They're just trying to spare you though, guy. You know, know they don't they don't choose seeing the sausage being made as biz mark said right

if you saw that sausage making process you would never eat what they're selling you anymore no yeah well exactly but you and i both know what it is it's avoiding accountability that's right you know i i don't want this bill to pass but i don't want to be held accountable i don't want my nra rating to to go down i don't want guy you know or. I don't want my NRA rating to go down. I don't want Guy or David saying bad things about us in the media. And so I want to kill it, but I don't want to be accountable for killing it. I know we'll just kill it in a private caucus meeting. That way I can have my cake and eat it too. And it gives them the ability to lie. I think you can go right back to their constituents. I guarantee you every Republican in there at some point said back to their constituents, oh, I supported constitutional

care. Really? Well, if everybody behind those closed doors supported it, why the hell did it come out as a dead bill? So it gives them the ability to lie and it avoids accountability. And that's something that's fundamentally broken. And it's a downside of having a super majority. That's right. Because things get decided behind those closed doors. I think that's one of the reasons why, you know, when we look at this, you were talking about, you know, being able to protect yourself. And we look at this trade-off always between liberty and safety, right?

And I think they were coming for the Second Amendment first before they started coming for the First Amendment, you know, free speech. They were coming after the guns because it was so easy for them to try to scare people and make that argument, trade off your liberty for safety, right? But now they're doing the same thing with the First Amendment. They're saying, well, you know, speech is really dangerous and it can cost lives and it can, you know, foment hatred and racism and all the rest of the stuff.

So we've got to keep you safe from all those different things. We've got to keep you safe from any speech that you don't like or that somebody might be offended from. But they did it for that. It's very easy to do that and try to make the case, well, you know, guns could be dangerous, that type of thing, focusing on crimes that were committed by guns. But now we're seeing this everywhere.

But it's always, isn't it, this tradeoff of liberty versus safety. And I've said for the longest time, Guy, that to the extent that you give up your liberty, you're not safe. You become more and more of a prisoner. And of course, Franklin said, if you do that, you don't deserve to have them. And we've seen over history that you don't get either one of them, right? You give up your safety, you lose your liberty as well. There isn't any way that we can buy our safety by giving up our liberty. And that is, I think, the essence of what they've done for the longest time with the Second Amendment, what they're now doing with the First Amendment as well.

Well, exactly. And, you know, that Franklin quote you see so often, and it's so apropos, you know, those who would give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither and will soon lose both. And I couldn't agree with that more. But it's a great setup. I don't know if you can see here over my left shoulder, and I'm sure you can't read the caption, but that's Thomas Jefferson back behind me. And the caption on this picture, which I come in every morning and I turn the light on above this picture and i say good morning tj and and then and then i read the passage which is on that picture which is i prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery that's right and and and and that quote is is really

what drives me in in doing so much of what i do, whether as a Second Amendment attorney, as a radio host, or as a gun rights advocate, that's what drives me. Because it's all about freedom. And those that would take my freedom under the guise of security are really trying to deprive me of both at the end of the day. You're right. Yeah. You're not going to be safe in a cell, even if it's a padded cell, right? You're still going to be in danger with that. We were talking earlier about

the militia argument. And I think this is kind of interesting. We've now had the Pentagon come out to the military and say, we don't trust young men with guns. This is the headline of reason. Pentagon experts don't trust young men with guns or with Red the headline of reason. Pentagon experts don't trust young men with guns or with red bull. Now red bull is not protected, but the guns are. And if you can't trust the military with guns, are they going to do, they'd lock them all up for the military as it is anyway, that's why we've had some mass shootings and killings on military bases because they don't allow the military to have, um, uh, weapons to protect themselves.

And, uh, yet they make this argument all the time. We hear this all the time from the Democrats. Well, you know, you just can't have those military style weapons because, oh, look at the, uh, the velocity of that particular bullet nonsense like that. And, but the, the military is, uh, one of the worst offenders in terms of people being allowed to protect themselves. Isn't it? Yeah, no, exactly.

And, you know, the pendulum was swinging the other way not so long ago, because after you had the two Fort Hood mass shootings, then you had a shooting at the recruitment center, which I believe was Chattanooga, another one in Nashville. And you saw these mass shootings on bases where here, these are our military personnel trained with firearms, trained in the implementation of force and deadly force, but not be trusted with firearms on their own base, and to walk in where a military base is a gun-free zone.

I mean, just get your mind around that for a minute. So much for the militia argument, right? Right, yeah. And so, like, for instance, our governor at the time here passed a resolution that said, no, if they pass a handgun safety program, our National Guard troops can carry on base. They can carry their personal sidearms. And so I was running around the state because I'm a firearms instructor as well and certified to teach exactly the course they were talking about. I ran around on my own dime and trained hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of National Guardsmen and women so that they had the right to carry a

gun on post, on base, and while they're performing their duties at recruitment centers and otherwise. And that was a great leap forward. But man, now we see coming from DOD, they want to raise the age to buy a gun if you're part of DOD to 25. So I'm sorry, you're going to, with a stroke of a pen, you're going to deprive the constitutional rights of hundreds of thousands of people that aren't yet 25 just because they're in the military? They're out there putting their lives on the line for our constitutional rights, and you're going to strip theirs? I mean, it's so offensive to me on so many different levels, but we see it over and over. Yeah, we saw it over the last couple of years with the mandates in the military over the vaccine.

You're going to take away your religious freedom and your constitutional rights. And many soldiers that I've talked to over that period of time say, look, you know, we didn't sign up for this. We signed up to protect the Constitution. That's our fundamental thing. And that means we protect it even when it comes to our rights. So I hope they do push back against it. But it's just the most amazing thing to see somebody who has been vetted by the military. They know these people. They've trained these people with firearms, as you pointed out. How would they then say, well, you're not allowed to have these firearms to protect yourself if you've been trained to use these firearms to protect the country, but you're not going to be allowed to have these things to protect yourself. It is absolutely

insane, but that's the type of thing we see from them all the time, isn't it? Exactly. And consider the test now that the the Bruin case that we've discussed you know they've thrown out this balancing test that so many courts used for years on Second Amendment issues say well there's a compelling state interest like safety then we could you know a little bit of infringement is okay um you know if it doesn't really uh go to the core of a of a constitutional freedom to a dramatic degree and and the supreme court said no that balancing's gone it's text history and tradition and that that is the test now and when that decision came out i said look this is nice for carry rights and it's nice to define that but where where this is going

to have the most impact is by redefining the test imagine this oral argument whether in front of the Supreme Court or anywhere else someone who's part of a military base is denied the right to buy a gun because he's not 25 simply because he's in the military I want to see an attorney general somewhere uh stand up and make the argument to a court or a lawyer before the U.S Supreme Court stand up and make the argument to a court or a lawyer before the U.S. Supreme Court, stand up and make the argument that it is part of not only the text of the Second Amendment that says simply the people shall have the right to bear arms, but it's consistent with the history and tradition of the United States of America for our soldiers to not be able to have guns.

I want to see that argument. I don't want to see age thing, right? Yeah. Especially the age thing. I want to see somebody who stand up with a straight face and make that argument because I'll be roaring with laughter. Yeah. Yeah. For the longest time.

I remember people saying, okay, so you can draft kids at 18, uh, send them off to kill and die, but they can't get a liquor until they're 21. Right. and die but they can't get liquor until they're 21 right so now they're going to say we're going to train you in the use of all firearms as well as weapons of mass destruction uh you you were trained and you were vetted as trustworthy but you can't get a gun to protect yourself until you're 25. that that's so insane but that that really is the world that we live in isn't it we we ran up against that in the context of constitutional carry because our constitutional carry law in Indiana allows anyone from any state, by the way, so it includes non-residents, who's not a prohibited possessor to carry if they're above 18 or 18 and above. And I was arguing that point in committee and I had several legislators

push back and say, well, a lot of other states have said 21. We ought to make it 21. I said, hold on. You're going to tell a 19-year-old kid, a 20-year-old kid who just came back from carrying an M4 select fire automatic weapon in Iraq or Afghanistan or who drove a tank or who manned field artillery that we don't trust them to go to the store and buy their own handgun. They're going to look at you like you're crazy because you are. And that died pretty quickly. We got it done for 18 and up. I just pointed out to people that, you know, they were coming for the cannons at Lexington.

If you look at the come and take it flag, that's a cannon on there. I like keeping the cannon on there. I've seen a lot of these things where they put an AR-15 on there, and it's like, let's keep the cannon on there because it gives people the real idea of what this is really about. It is crazy. You're talking about recognizing reciprocity of carry for people coming into Indiana and how important that is.

I think one of the worst offenders of that has been New Jersey. I've seen so many different cases of people getting caught, a guy going to jail because he was in the process of moving, and he's got all of his possessions in his car. His family, he's running late. His family's concerned. They asked the police to be on the lookout for him, so they pull him over, and they start questioning him.

And it's like, can you open up the trunk? We'd like to see what's in there. It's like, he's got nothing to hide, so he opens up the trunk, and underneath all this luggage and clothing and all this kind of stuff for some of his guns down at the bottom, he got busted and got jail. We just had another case of this with somebody who was a female wrestler for the WWE. She's licensed in Florida. She goes to New Jersey. She parks the car there.

She carries the gun in her glove compartment because she's had people threaten her and stalk her and things like that. The people who are doing the parking for her look at it, and they call the police. And now she's in big trouble. I mean, it's just insane to see how New Jersey is victimizing people who have been vetted, gone above and beyond what their constitutional right is, and tried to comply with this as a privilege. It's just amazing and beyond what their constitutional right is, and tried to comply with this as a privilege. It's just amazing and disgusting to see. It is. I'll give you the worst

example, because I know exactly the cases you're talking about and agree a thousand percent. But the one that I talk about in this context, which is mind-boggling to me, is a gentleman was flying from Minnesota to Philadelphia, and he was licensed to carry in Minnesota, which was recognized apparently in Pennsylvania. And he checked his lawfully possessed firearm at the airport in Minnesota for the flight, which you can do, and I do it regularly. He checked his firearm, unloaded, secured in a lock case the whole requirement was flying to philadelphia because of weather got diverted to newark so he lands in newark they because they could there's no uh flight out yet that night so they said well we're going to put you up at the

airport hotel and fly you out the next morning so they give everybody their luggage back he goes he goes so you have your toiletries and change of clothes or whatever so he spends the night he goes back and he says by the way I need to declare an unloaded firearm in my check bag and there's a cop standing right there who says why didn't see your New Jersey license to carry and he goes I don't have one but it's just in my bag and I'm on my way to to Pennsylvania and I'm just declaring it because it's in my bag. He said, well, I saw you carry that suitcase up here. If it's in your suitcase, you don't have a New Jersey license. You're going to jail. They took him to, he goes, I didn't want to be a newer. It wasn't my idea. Nobody wants to be a newer. I'm here involuntarily. It's in my check bag.

And they didn't care. They took him to jail. He was looking at two years in prison. Eventually the governor got involved. I think it was still Chris Christie then. Um, and he got things dramatically reduced or, or, or dropped, but he spent thousands and thousands of dollars and spent weeks in jail because his flight got diverted. That's how ridiculous it is. Wow. Wow. And I believe him because nobody wants to go to Newark. That was totally believable. it's just it is insane absolutely is insane but thank you so much for joining us uh guy ralphard and again you can find him he's live on radio in indiana but it's the gun guy podcast is that correct that you'll find everywhere yes sir yep it's on wabc.com

which is available from anywhere and uh yeah the gun guy podcast which which you can find on iTunes and any number of other places. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you so much for what you're doing for freedom, because that really is key. And all of our freedoms are under attack, but again, they began with the second amendment and because they could start pushing this trade off your Liberty for safety thing,

I think, but they're going for everything now they want to take all of them down. So thank you for what you do, guy. I really do appreciate it. Well, thank you. And it to take all of them down. So thank you for what you do, Guy. I really do appreciate it. Well, thank you. And it's an honor to be here. The Common Man.

They created Common Core to dumb down our children. They created Common Past to track and control us. Their Commons Project to make sure the commoners own nothing. And the communist future. They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away.

Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at thedavidknightshow.com. Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. TheDavidKnightShow.com.