The End The End The End The End The End The End These are simple statistics that you can find anywhere. Switzerland has the highest rate of depression of any country in the world outside of what used to be known as the Soviet Union when it was at its height. When vodka was the largest selling commodity in that organization. Remember, socialism is just one step on the rung above communism. So here you have the highest suicide rate in the world, the highest rate of depression. This is the nation that the socialists hold up to you as a great example of how socialism works. Recently, the Wall Street Journal, on Monday the 24th of February, reported that the Swiss army is now preparing for violent protests and is studying the Los Angeles riots. The article is Swiss Miss. Banks falter. Jobs are lost. That's the story of socialism. They have a negative. That's negative. Minus. Half a percent total growth. Now this just isn't a minus a half percent growth for the last year. This is a minus a half percent total growth since 1990. The slowest in the entire industrialized world. Unemployment, they say, is over 5.7 percent. And they will admit that about 10 percent of all of the Swiss citizens live below the poverty level. How about those statistics? What do you think about that? Do you know why it's so attractive not to work in Switzerland? Because the Swiss unemployment benefits are 80 percent of your previous salary for two years. Don't you think? I mean, with our experience with welfare here, once people get on these measly welfare checks, and I mean they're measly, barely live on them, they get addicted to it and can't get off. Don't you think people are going to be tempted not to work if they get 80 percent of their salary for the last two years on unemployment? Two years ago, there was a rally in Zurich protesting Swiss integration into the European Union. The government brought out riot police and water cannons. Last October, 15,000 farmers marched in Bern to protest cuts in agricultural subsidies. They were followed by 35,000 public employees protesting changes in work rules. Oh boy. And they say that Switzerland is the great example for socialists to follow. Well, the Swiss army believes that there's going to be serious civil unrest in Switzerland. And they're trying to get the army into domestic policing. And it's just another example of a worldwide trend, the merge civilian police and the military functions. Now, what kind of a flash do you think that's going to be? Because in Switzerland, everybody is required to own and possess, maintain and keep weapons and ammunition in every home. So if they do have civil unrest and they bring the military out against the citizens, you'll obviously see a serious war there. In any case, I wouldn't go to Switzerland on a vacation. How about you? Hmm? There's a village. There. I don't know. There we are. There. There. There. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Well, folks, let's cause a great stir and a commotion throughout the land. I'm going to read you an article now from Guns Magazine, January 1995. I'm going to go back a couple of years to get this. Guns and the Law is the column by Roy Huntington. Everybody should have a copy of this. The organized militia, which consists of National Guard and the Naval Militia, and two, the unorganized militia, which consists of members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or of the Naval Militia. Title 10, United States Code, Section 311. When the president signed into law the omnibus crime bill, he said during the ceremony, quote, It is up to you to take personal responsibility for your safety, end quote. I'm sorry? What? Did he just say? He takes away? He takes away the very means we have to defend ourselves with one hand. Then, please, he can't be responsible for our safety and to look out for ourselves with the other. It seems we have politicians who think for their own good and not for the people they represent. In fact, I know it. Since the crime bill has passed, I'm going to throw away my guns and take the locks off of all my doors and leave my keys in my cars. After all, there shouldn't be any more crime. Of course, I've also got a real deal on a bridge I have for sale in Brooklyn. Anybody interested? You can phone Connie during this broadcast. We'll make you a deal you can't refuse. But we did it to ourselves, though politicians are so afraid to say no to anything with crime in the title. For fear of being voted out by the sheeple that it tempers their objectivity. For the sheeple are so dazzled by all of the statistics that are skewed and swayed and perverted in manners that serve certain agendas. That they literally are on their knees begging for their rights to be taken away to get the drugs and the crime off the streets. Have you been guilty of that? The American public has to grow up, ladies and gentlemen, and let representatives do their jobs. Just because propaganda for a new law says it will be tough on crime doesn't mean it is actually so. Just look at the omnibus crime bill, by the way, that they passed, not just last year, but every year and each time they pass the omnibus crime bill, it's going to do away with all of the crime. And then the next year when they find out that it didn't, they want to pass another one. And they take away more and more of our rights. And it doesn't get anybody off the streets. And it certainly hasn't cut down on the use or the availability or the profit in drugs. Or has it stopped murders in places that you're not even allowed to own guns like Washington, D.C. and New York City? Which, by the way, have the highest crime rates in the entire free world. We must let an appropriately educated representative vote according to reason and not let knee-jerk anti-crime hysteria by the voting public get in their way of objective evaluation. That's what a republic is all about. You see, democracy's cause what is happening. Still, let's make them pay for it. Let's make them pay for it. After the crime bill's initial failure in the House, we witnessed and were victims to a wholesale caustic verbal attack on the American people by President Clinton and his cronies. His public whining after the failure of the bill to go to the floor for a vote was inappropriate, at least, and certainly embarrassing conduct for the President of the United States of America, and all the while with that silly little smile smirk on his face. As if he's sort of laughing at us all the time. And I believe sincerely that he is. His posturing in front of on-duty, uniformed police, under orders to pose as a backdrop for Clinton's speech, most against their will, was a flagrant abuse of his powers, using public servants for his own political maneuvers. As a working cop, I am very definitely prohibited against appearing in uniform while expressing my own political views. What gives him the right? He continues to affront the intelligence of the thinking man by assuming we know little or nothing of our country's history and have a short memory regarding his promises. His recent tirades have included implications that the Supreme Court of the United States has never directly dealt with the Second Amendment, and I'm going to put that to rest during these two hours, ladies and gentlemen. Indeed, he has pointedly insulted millions of law-abiding Americans by telling us, in no uncertain terms, we don't know what is best for ourselves. He and his liberal peers have harangued us, pointedly telling us that by failing to encourage our elected officials to follow his edicts, we have foolishly ignored his more logical, just ask him, he'll tell you, albeit uninformed, biased, and politically motivated agendas, thereby endangering millions. His carefully orchestrated speeches while standing in front of uniformed officers, officers, ladies and gentlemen, rank with the very best of the old propaganda thinkers. If you tell them it is so enough times, they will eventually believe it. Oh, but not the American people. Oh, you better think again. You see, I'm concerned. Too many of the American people I spoke with after the passage of the crime bill knew virtually nothing about the gun ban portion. Cop after cop knew it had something to do with assault rifles, but knew nothing of the specifics regarding magazine capacity. Many thought police officers would be exempt and were suitably huffed when I explained that they would not be. You see, police officers have an elitist attitude of their own, believing that they are above the public and should be exempt from the same laws that the public, of course, must abide by. Boy, were they upset when they found out that that wasn't true. It is truly our fault. This has all come to pass. It is a product of our collective ignorance, apathy, and yes, even stupidity, and our collective laziness. Hard words indeed. It is important, ladies and gentlemen, to remember who we are dealing with. Recently, Senator Rockefeller said that he would railroad the health care bill through regardless of what the people wanted. Let me say that again in case you missed it. Regardless of what the people wanted. Whatever happens to buy the people for the people and all of that nonsense? I feel compelled to once again show how Clinton has lied to the American people. It has become so mundane and regular as to be almost routine. You see, the Supreme Court has made many rulings regarding the Second Amendment, all protestations notwithstanding, and I'm going to give you several of those right now. You might find it interesting to note, however, that the American Civil Liberties Union, the so-called defenders of your constitutional rights, and the bastion of all that is liberal, will not represent you when Janet Reno's brigades of thugs make an unlawful attack on your home and you are arrested on a trumped-up gun violation, which is constitutional, un-constitutional, on its face. I'm afraid the ACLU has arbitrarily decided the Second Amendment is null and void and not for today's world. In fact, the ACLU has publicly announced that they do not recognize the Second Article in Amendment, yet they call upon all Americans to be law-abiding, but they decide they will not recognize a portion of the supreme law of the land, making them outlaws. You see, they believe it's null and void and not for today's world. Call and ask them if you don't believe it. They'll tell you. I wonder which unalienable right will fall next, since they all seem to be crumbling as rot attacks the very foundation they were built upon. Now, I want you all to pay attention. Make sure you have pen and pencil by your side, and if you don't, shame on you, because you know that you should never listen to this broadcast without it. Listen carefully. Listen to what the United States judicial system says, and remember, we fought the British for less than what is going on today. Much, much less. So much less that I think the colonists who fought the Revolutionary War might just have thoughts about our courage, questions about cowardice and such things like that. 1865 Presser v. Illinois. All citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserve militia, and the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to disable the people from performing the militia duty to the general government. End quote. Let me read that again, you blithering blah bleaters. As you know that I'm not talking to all of you, if it makes you mad that I call you sheeple, then I'm talking directly to you because I'd hit a nerve, and you know it's true or you wouldn't be upset about it any more than I would be upset walking down the street when somebody yelled, Stop, Robert! Because I know I didn't rob anybody. 1865 Presser v. Illinois. All citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserve militia, and the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to disable the people from performing the militia duty to the general government. End quote. 1876. United States v. Cruikshank. Quote. The court said the people's right to bear arms, like the right of assembly and petition, existed long before the Constitution and is not in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. End quote. And I've told you that many times. The Constitution itself recognizes the militia as a pre-existing force. 1939. United States v. Miller. The court said, quote, The militia is comprised of all able-bodied males, adding that ordinarily when called, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of a kind in common use at the time. It also said that since there was no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun is an appropriate militia or military weapon, there is no constitutional right to possess such an instrument. The implication was clear that arms appropriate for the military are protected by the Second Amendment. These are the very firearms scheduled to be banned in the crime bill. And have been. 1990. United States v. Verdugo Urquidez. Quote, The term, the people, as explicitly used in the Second Amendment and elsewhere in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, is a term chosen by the Founding Fathers to mean all individuals who make up our national community. End quote. You see, these anti-gun people are lying, puke-faced pigs. Chronic liars. Everything that drips out of their mouth is a lie. 1943, Murdoch v. Pennsylvania. Quote, In a First Amendment case on religion and press, but important to the taxing and licensing of privately owned firearms, the court said that the power to impose a license fee on a constitutional right amounts to prior restraint and the power to restrict or deny the right. The court ruled it unconstitutional to require a license tax for exercise of a right guaranteed by the federal Constitution. The court called the license fee a flat tax and said, a tax laid specifically on the exercise of these freedoms would be unconstitutional. End quote. And this is almost exactly what brought that first showdown at Lexington and Concord. I leave you with this little reminder from 1855 which has been upheld many times over in courts in our country. South v. Maryland. Quote, Courts have repeatedly held that police have no duty to protect any individual but only a general duty to protect society and cannot be held personally liable for failure to protect an individual. See also Warren v. District of Columbia 1981. And even if they wanted to in many cases they couldn't. For a recent poll showed that approximately 50 to 60 percent of all calls for police help were not answered for over an hour. Clearly, each individual must assume responsibility for his own protection along with the implications regarding the rights of ownership of the means to do so. If they tell us they can't, won't, and don't have to protect us, then take away the very means for us to take care of ourselves, it seems to me that it leaves us at their mercy. Do you really want to be at their mercy? Do you? I doubt seriously that you do. do you even for 5 questions So I did have them come time and keep as THE END THE END I'm going to read you the testimony of David Koppel to the FUMO Committee, Tuesday, February 25, 1997, at 8.56 p.m. I'm sorry, that's wrong, that's when I received this. I'm going to read the testimony to the FUMO Committee of David Koppel, folks, which occurred September the 8th, 1994. Boy, as soon as I read that date, I knew it was wrong. He testified to the Pennsylvania legislature, to the select committee investigating the use of automatic and semi-automatic firearms in Philadelphia. David Koppel is the research director of the Independence Institute, Golden, Colorado. He is also an associate policy analyst for the Cato Institute, Washington, D.C. And I'm going to read this verbatim with no interjections unless I tell you that I am going to interject something. Quote, Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am David B. Koppel, an associate policy analyst with the Cato Institute, a free market think tank in Washington, D.C. I am also the author of the book, The Samurai, The Mountie, and The Cowboy, Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? The book was chosen as the book of the year by the American Society of Criminology's Division of International Criminology. Within the United States, there are few success stories available for gun control advocates. The areas with the most gun controls, such as New York City, which has severe gun licensing, are Washington, D.C., handgun prohibition, a ban on keeping an assembled long gun for self-defense. In other words, you can't own a gun. Or also the areas with the most gun crime. While it is true that New York, Washington, Chicago, and other gun control centers would probably be dangerous places with or without gun controls, these restrictive jurisdictions are rarely looked to as models by anyone who does not live there. Accordingly, the American gun prohibition movement, including the medical researchers and physicians who support gun prohibition, often extol the virtues of other democratic nations such as Canada, Great Britain, or Japan. Those countries have strict gun control laws and little gun crime, argue the prohibitionists. If the United States adopted similar policies, the United States would enjoy a similar low rate of gun crime. To many advocates of restrictive firearms laws, the necessity of imitating foreign-style gun control laws is painfully obvious. But surprisingly, there has been little research into how these foreign gun laws work, if they work at all. Even gun prohibition advocates are rarely able to provide more than a paragraph or two of generalized assertions about gun laws in any particular country. So do foreign gun laws work, and would they work if imported into the United States? This was the question I set out to answer as I began research for my book, The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy, Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? Printed by Prometheus and Buffalo in 1992. After examining in depth the gun control policies of Japan, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, and Switzerland, and the gun culture in the United States, it became clear that the foreign gun control situation is much more complex than American gun control advocates have assumed. Among the foreign countries, there is no particular correlation between the severity of gun control and the prevalence of gun crime. Indeed, of the nations studied, the two that are by far the safest have diametrically opposite gun control policies. In Japan, violent crime and homicide are virtually unknown, except for crimes perpetrated by the Yakuza gangsters and the murder of children by suicidal parents. Japan prohibits handguns and rifles. Shotguns may be obtained only after a rigorous licensing process that even includes a short psychiatric examination. The almost complete prohibition on guns in Japan has been strictly enforced ever since 19... Excuse me. Have been strictly enforced ever since 1588. That's right, 1588. When the military dictator Hideyoshi announced the, quote, sword hunt, end quote, and confiscated all firearms and swords from the peasantry. Hideyoshi's decree perceptively observed that, quote, the possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and tends to foment uprising, end quote. So at first glance, the Japanese experience would seem to support the theory that turning the possession of instruments of deadly force into a government monopoly will make people safer from each other, if not safer from the government. Only one other country examined in the samurai, the mountie, and the cowboy has a murder rate as low as Japan. That country is Switzerland, where gun control laws are also strict, but in a rather different way. You see, every Swiss male, aged 20 to 50, is strictly required to spend several weeks a year in military training. Switzerland has no professional standing army and has always relied for defense on having its entire male population trained in warfare and ready to mobilize. As part of the militia duty, every militiaman, that is every male, aged 20 to 50, is given a fully automatic assault rifle, required to keep it in his home, and obliged to periodically demonstrate his marksmanship proficiency. Swiss policy makes the acquisition of other weapons simple for everyone, including women and men who are too old for military service. Ammunition sales are subsidized. 3,000 shooting ranges flourish in a nation two-thirds the size of West Virginia. Many long guns may be bought with no restrictions at all, whereas federal United States law requires all gun purchases to be registered at the point of sale. Most handguns and some rifles require a simple permit to purchase, which is given freely to any adult who is not a criminal, alcoholic, or otherwise disqualified. Even anti-tank weapons, howitzers, anti-aircraft guns, and cannons may be purchased with a readily and easily obtained license. Firearms, shooting competitions, and survival training pervade Swiss life in a way that would startle many suburban Americans who see guns mainly on television. And yet for all the machine guns and other weapons in Switzerland, the country is as safe as Japan and significantly safer than countries with much more restrictive gun control laws such as Great Britain or Australia. What Japan and Switzerland have in common and what is conspicuously absent in most of the metropolitan United States is a very strong family structure, tightly knit communities, stable residential patterns, and good relationships across generational lines. The crucial variable is not the presence of firearms, but the degree to which young people are successfully socialized into non-criminal responsible behavior patterns. The evidence from other nations is consistent with the Swiss-Japanese experience. At the turn of the century, Great Britain had no gun controls at all. Convicted violent felons, the criminally insane, and anyone else could buy and carry anything from a Derringer to a sawed-off shotgun to a Gatling gun with no registration and no licensing. The only requirement was ready cash, and yet Great Britain had almost no gun crime. As the constraints imposed by the Victorian Code of Behavior provided the most effective gun control system the nation ever experienced. As the 20th century has progressed, laws in Britain have grown increasingly severe, so that only about 4% of households today legally own guns, and those households are subject to arbitrary inspections by a police force with the announced goal of eliminating civilian gun ownership, and while Britain remains generally safer than the United States, violent crime and gun crime have skyrocketed compared to earlier decades. While Britain, in the name of public safety, has abolished or drastically constricted many rights that Americans take for granted, including the right to bear arms, the right to a criminal jury trial, the right to grand jury indictments, the right to a criminal jury trial, the right to a criminal defendant to confront his accuser, and, by the most recent government proposal, the right to silence. The concentration of ever greater power in the hands of the government has proven a poor antidote for the steady decline in the socialization of children into responsible behavior by the community. Although American gun prohibition advocates appear to endorse every foreign gun control law they encounter, there was only one gun law in the countless, in the countries, let me read that again so there's no confusion. Although American gun prohibition advocates appear to endorse every foreign gun control law they encounter, there was only one gun law in the countries studied, in the samurai, whose enactment led to any statistically noticeable drop in gun crime. In contrast, many of the foreign gun laws were associated with significant reductions in the gun suicide rate, although the evidence also suggests that the substitution of other methods of suicide wiped out any statistically perceptible net savings of lies. The one gun control law that was followed by a noticeable drop in crime was enacted in Jamaica, where a 1974 gun confiscation law was accompanied by numerous other repressive measures, including house-to-house searches, incommunicado detention, secret trials, mandatory life in prison for possession of a single bullet, warrantless searches and seizures, and military enforcement of the drug laws. The Jamaican violent crime rate dropped significantly for six months, then returned to its former level over the next year, and then began to grow substantially worse than it had ever been in its history. As the homicide rates soared far above American levels, about a third of all Jamaican homicides were perpetrated by the police. A Jamaican suffered a higher risk of being murdered by the police than an American did of being murdered by anyone. According to the Human Rights Group, America's Watch, policemen, would murder personal enemies and then falsely claim that the victims were killed in a shootout. Homicides perpetrated by the police were rarely investigated as long as the policemen claimed that the victim had a gun. The increasing police violence, made possible in part by middle-class hysteria over guns, in turn fueled a cycle of violence in the rest of Jamaican society. Almost every scholar who has studied the Jamaican crime situation shares the conclusions of criminologist William Calafee's award-winning analysis which found that the gun restrictions, as well as the other restrictions on civil liberty, were the result of, highly developed skills of political management, which were designed not to reduce crime, but to distract public attention from the underlying problems of Jamaican society, including economic inequality. Jamaica's experience with a soaring rate of murder by government would not be particularly surprising to many American or Australian gun owners. In the United States and Australia, many gun owners view the fundamental purpose of the right to bear arms to be resistance to a tyrannical government. Most gun owners in Great Britain, Canada, and New Zealand, though, would kid their American and Australian cousins for placing guns in the context of resistance to authority rather than innocent sporting purposes. The Jamaican experience is perhaps the most important foreign gun control situation for Americans to study, not because there is any realistic possibility of similar laws being imposed in the United States, at least not all at once, but because Jamaica illustrates the political distraction function of gun control. Politicians in Great Britain and Canada have successfully used gun control to turn attention away from proposals to reinstatement of the death penalty after highly publicized shootings. While many tepid supporters of American gun control acknowledge that gun control may not accomplish much, they hope that it might accomplish a little and reason that since gun control can't hurt, it is worth trying even for minimal gains. Gun control opponents counter that gun control kills because, at least sometimes, it deprives innocent persons of the ability to protect themselves. While such an objection may be a relatively potent response to the stated goal of Handgun Control, Incorporated, Chair Sarah Brady, the prohibition of the ownership of any firearm for self-defense, the objection is less relevant to lesser gun control proposals which have a smaller impact on self-defense. The more immediate risk of so many gun control proposals in the United States is their political distraction function. As long as the American public tolerates politicians touting gun control as the top item on the public safety agenda, then politicians will continue to evade the difficult job of enacting measures that would deal with the roots of America's crime crises, including a welfare system that subsidizes illegitimacy and fatherless children, a dysfunctional government school system in most large cities, a rapidly growing underclass of all races, tax policies which prevent many mothers from choosing to stay home with their children, and a failed and counterproductive war on drugs. Yet as more and more criminologists come to recognize most of the gun control lobby's agenda as a distraction from meaningful social reform, the Centers for Disease Control and other segments of the medical establishment, churn out reports which insist that gun ownership is a public health problem, at least in regards to comparisons of the United States with other nations, the reports are far from persuasive. Sometimes, the medical research compiles genuinely useful international data, but then contends itself with asserting that gun control must be good because the American gun crime rate is so much higher than in other countries. In other cases, as in the famous Seattle-Vancouver studies, the media turn a journal's press release soundbite into a conclusion which vastly overstates the inferences that can be drawn from a single-case study, especially when the research is seriously flawed as the Seattle-Vancouver work. Among the limitations of the Seattle-Vancouver studies is, consistent with virtually all research regarding Canada, the absence of any perceptible beneficial effect from Canada's switch in 1977 from a system of no regulation for long guns and mild regulation for handguns to moderate regulation for long guns and stringent regulation for handguns. In contrast, epidemiological or criminological research which questions the efficacy of gun control, including a study of all Canadian provinces and adjacent American states, rarely receive much attention beyond academia. Finally, the public health campaign to outlaw guns because of the allegedly successful gun control policies of other nations ignores the potential criminogenic effect of those controls. American rates for crimes that usually involve guns, such as murder, and crimes that rarely involve guns, such as rape, are both far higher than the rates in most democratic nations. Curiously, the American residential burglary rate is below that of other nations. Perhaps this is because in the United States, an American burglar who breaks into an occupied home faces a risk of being shot that equals his risk of going to prison. In contrast, burglars in other nations do not face such risks. Gun owners in Great Britain, New Zealand, and Canada express little interest in the protective aspects of gun ownership. Australians are more interested in guns for protection, but as a matter of law, defensive gun ownership is illegal in most of Australia. Given the poor record of restrictive firearms laws in other English-speaking countries, the simplistic, reflexive insistence of the gun prohibition lobby and its medical allies that the United States immediately import foreign gun control laws may imperil rather than protect public health. And that is the opinion and the research of David B. Koppel, which is significant and overwhelmingly shows that the facts as they really are are not anything near the lies that Sarah Brady and her ilk spew out to the public on a somewhat regular basis. And I find it amazing that Americans, Americans, whose nation was founded by such geniuses who had built up safeguards in every way that they could to protect us from any kind of tyranny and who had done it because they had observed the tyranny that occurred on a routine basis in Europe, would even begin to embrace the flawed statistics and the outright lies of the anti-gun lobby, of hand-gun control incorporated, of rabid socialists like Sarah Brady. I mean, how does that happen? How does it happen when we can see that cities that have completely outlawed gun ownership at all within the 10-mile square area of Washington, D.C., there are more murders and more gun-related crimes than in any place else in the country. Yet they have a total ban on gun ownership of any kind in Washington, D.C. And yet, Americans ignore that. In places where it is required that all the citizens own guns, there is very little crime at all. Why? Because every criminal knows that they are taking a great risk of being shot. If they try to rape a woman who is carrying a gun, or break into a house where guns are owned, or mug someone who is carrying a gun, or try to steal the car of someone who carries a gun in their car. That's why. And every year, thousands of lives are saved by responsible gun-owning citizens who use their weapon in self-defense or in the defense of others. Yet, you never see those statistics, but they're readily available. I've read them to you on the air here. Instead, you're given phony statistics that when you check them are not even true. Such as the most recent that 186,000 felons were prevented from buying firearms by the Brady Bill. It is an outright lie. And research has shown that most of those turned away were turned away by mistake. Many of them were turned away because law enforcement did not have the time to check the records. Some of them were turned away for misdemeanors, misdemeanors, not felonies. And there is no law against a person who has a misdemeanor from owning a firearm, preventing a person who has a misdemeanor from owning a firearm. If there was, they wouldn't have to worry about gun control. Most of America would already be stripped of their firearms because most Americans, sometime in their life, have committed a misdemeanor. A traffic ticket, ladies and gentlemen, is a misdemeanor. For gosh sake. I feel so stupid saying for gosh sake, because if I wasn't on the radio, it's not anything near what I would say. I was in the Navy. I have a vocabulary that I like to use to fit the situation. Unfortunately, it's not good to do it on the radio. Now, if this continues, ladies and gentlemen, if all of this continues, including the ignorance, apathy, and stupidity of the American sheeple, you're looking at the impending death of the United States of America, our freedom for the world. And, by golly, of all the principles and ideals that made this nation great, you see, we didn't get to this point by accident. We got here because we had certain principles and ideals and privileges and rights, mainly rights. Those rights brought other privileges, so to speak. But, you see, we don't have constitutional rights. We have rights that were recognized by the founders of this nation that were given to us by our creator. They wrote a constitution in the Bill of Rights to protect us from the government taking away our encroaching upon those rights. And then, as a last resort, they gave us the second article in Amendment in case the government broke out of its bounds and indeed became a tyrant. a militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Now, you can say whatever you want. You can believe whatever you want. You can believe weapons, guns are evil. You can believe that we should do away with them. You can believe that none of us should have the right to carry them, but I'm going to tell you right now, until you rip the Constitution and the Bill of Rights into a billion pieces and fling them into the wind, you cannot enact any constitutional law restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms in any manner without breaking the law yourself, for that is the supreme law of the land. Unless you want to preside over the funeral of this great nation. Thank you. Robertме sure about hearing and have you felt like had been until we can This is the Voice of Freedom. This is the Voice of Freedom. This is the Voice of Freedom. This is the Voice of Freedom. This is the Voice of Freedom. This is the Voice of Freedom. This is the Voice of Freedom. This is the Voice of Freedom. This is the Voice of Freedom. This is the Voice of Freedom. This is the Voice of Freedom. This is the Voice of Freedom. This is the Voice of Freedom. This is the Voice of Freedom. This is the Voice of Freedom.