TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker asserts that certain actions were deliberate and denies using hand signals on that day, noting that no hand signals were used except the general ones, and that while some people, like Frank Turk, were “messing with him because he adjusted his hat,” such incidents were part of a broader pattern where “everybody’s subject to that.” The point is that there is manipulation and opposition, and the speaker acknowledges that there are things larger than individuals that are in operations, even if he is not a conspiracy theorist. A central theme is the First Amendment and its intended purpose. The speaker explains that the First Amendment is important because “a voice is in arms for people that don't have arms,” allowing a collective or single voice to challenge a powerful hierarchy. It should be used as a shield to protect speech. However, with modern media and social media, the right has, in his view, been weaponized as a sword of public opinion. People can put out “a bunch of lies” and claim the First Amendment, asserting whatever they want, and it no longer functions solely as protection but can be a tool to push false narratives. He criticizes the proliferation of misinformation—examples like “Palm gun, exploding microphone, hand signals” are cited as items that may be false or sensationalized—and emphasizes that truth is not required for public opinion to take hold. The speaker suggests a return to consequences for false statements, advocating a more immediate response similar to the past: “put those people in the way back machine” to 1985, when if someone said something untrue about you or your family and others heard it, there would be an immediate consequence (a split lip), not a lawsuit several years later. This, he implies, would instill a level of respect and deter repeat offenses. He argues that sometimes people need to be punished in the moment to maintain accountability, even as he acknowledges the desire to balance free speech with consequences. Overall, the speaker weaves together a defense of the First Amendment, a critique of today’s information environment, and a provocative call for a return to quicker, tangible consequences for false or harmful statements, framed within a belief that larger forces operate beyond individual actions.

I'm willing to collaborate with anyone serious about censoring Americans and pushing a progressive agenda, but the problem is they're just not serious enough. Try to violate our First Amendment rights, and we'll respond by exercising our Second Amendment rights.

Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 if they still believe the NRA is a terror group. Speaker 0 clarifies that they support the 2nd amendment and do not consider the NRA a terror group. Speaker 1 questions if Speaker 0 regrets tweeting about it in 2018, to which Speaker 0 responds that they don't recall tweeting it but if they did, they don't consider the NRA a terror group. Speaker 1 then asks if Speaker 0 regrets endorsing various politicians, and Speaker 0 clarifies that they don't recall endorsing Bernie Sanders but they do like him, and they voted for Barack Obama without regrets.

The speaker argues that the Second Amendment is a right, not a privilege, but with restrictions that include having an ID and a permit on hand. He notes that current reports claim Alex Pretty did not have either on, implying he was not carrying legally. Beyond legality, the speaker emphasizes a responsibility to carry a firearm with foresight and understanding of the situation, recommending that someone who carries take a training class for their state, and even suggesting taxpayers fund it if possible because it’s a right. Regarding the shooting incident, the speaker states that only one person could have absolutely prevented Alex Pretty from being shot that day: Alex Pretty himself. He asserts he does not think the shooting was necessary to save a life, but he watched the incident from behind Pretty and not as an arresting officer or as the person who might have fired. He questions why Pretty had 10 rounds, arguing that if someone is shot, the shooter should have aimed to kill because they are trying to kill you; he attributes this to police training and the reasonableness doctrine. The speaker references the Supreme Court’s reasonableness doctrine, explaining that a police officer may protect themselves when someone has resisted arrest, disobeyed orders, and shown the means to harm. He concedes Pretty should not have been shot, noting there were ten minutes prior to the event with alternative actions that could have been taken, but he did not see those ten minutes. He describes Pretty as a protester versus an agitator, noting Pretty arrived with a cell phone and stood in the middle of a street during an operation, which the speaker labels as common sense. He asserts that carrying a weapon and entering the middle of a police operation is lawful, but suggests another prevention: a police cordon by the Minneapolis Police Department to prevent people like Pretty from entering the middle of the operation, instead of standing 100 feet away with a sign. The speaker acknowledges potential liability for any federal agent who acted prematurely or shot when they shouldn’t have, but reiterates that Pretty had no business where he was at that moment and did resist arrest. He states that in Minnesota, a carry permit is revoked at the moment of resisting arrest. Finally, the speaker blames politicians for letting the event happen, naming Donald Trump and Tim Walz as figures discussed. He calls for Border Patrol agents to secure the border and for the Minneapolis Police Department to be present to manage crowds. He mentions Jose Huerta Chuma, describing a violent rap sheet including domestic assault, and argues that sympathy for someone who is willing to risk the safety of others should diminish. He emphasizes a desire for no one to get hurt and urges people to use common sense, especially when carrying a weapon.

The First Amendment exists because in other countries, people were imprisoned or killed for speaking their minds. The Second Amendment is there to protect the First Amendment. If the government disarms the people, they can do anything they want. In Venezuela, Chavez took away everyone's guns, then Maduro lost an election but stayed in power. People protested, but they were facing soldiers with assault rifles. Maduro is still in power because the people were disarmed. This is the kind of risk we face.

I don't agree with the idea of changing gun culture through gun control. It's unrealistic. We need to focus on making potential threats worry about our actions instead. Outlawing everything isn't the solution. We should have controls to prevent the wrong people from getting guns. It's about defending ourselves, not taking away rights. Good luck. Translation: The speaker disagrees with using gun control to change gun culture and believes focusing on making potential threats worry about our actions is more effective. They argue against outlawing everything and emphasize the importance of controls to prevent the wrong people from accessing guns for self-defense.

Speaker 0 argues that rights were "endowed by nature, natural law, affirmed by reason, and placed under providence for safekeeping," and that government "was not formed to rule these rights, but to protect them." He frames constitutional rights as inherent and safeguarded, not as subjects for government domination, and emphasizes that government exists to secure those rights. Speaker 1 shifts the discussion, asking, "to secure a conversation about a paper document, or are we talking about Epstein here?" This question introduces a digression into whether the topic is about foundational rights or unrelated matters tied to a sensational or infamous subject, suggesting concern about sidetracking the conversation. Speaker 0 reiterates the core point by recalling that the rights he references are connected to "our natural law" and to "our first built in amendments, our bill of rights," asserting that these rights are represented by the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights. He adds, "thank you, God, for free for your interjection," acknowledging a religious or spiritual dimension to the discussion, but he notes that the interjection is not intended to derail his initial statement. Speaker 1 comments on the tendency of some people to derail discussions by introducing concepts like "sovereign law," describing such interruptions as "bizarre," and signaling a desire to keep the focus on the constitutional framework rather than peripheral or fringe theories. Throughout, the speakers center on the premise that rights are natural and protected by government, and that the purpose of government is to protect those rights. They underscore the significance of the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights as foundational representations of these natural rights. The dialogue also acknowledges the challenge of staying on topic, with Speaker 1 warning against digressions into sovereign-law rhetoric, while Speaker 0 seeks to maintain focus on the constitutional rights protected by law. The exchange culminates in an affirmation of natural rights, their constitutional embodiment, and the role of government in safeguarding them, coupled with a brief acknowledgement of divine attribution to the framework discussed.

Senator Marino: "a person should be fired for exercising their First Amendment rights." He says he will "read something into the record and I'm gonna submit something for the record, then we'll get on." He states: "What the ranking member may not realize, and I want to submit to the record, is Federalist 46 written by James Madison." He quotes: "the people's ability to arm themselves and form state militias provide a powerful check on the federal power ensuring the populace can resist potential government overreach. In fact, went on to say that an armed citizenry is the best defense against an ambitious government." He adds: "So the person that created the constitution that allows us to do our job here for two hundred and forty plus years should be fired for saying that we should have the right to protect ourselves." "Without objection, we'll submit Federalist 46 for the record."

Speaker 0 is asked about winning the union vote despite his stance on gun control. He denies wanting to take away guns and clarifies that he never mentioned it. The conversation becomes heated and the speaker interrupts, asking to hold on. The transcript ends abruptly with the speaker mentioning "a lot of guys" without further explanation.

The speaker states that their views on gun rights have changed drastically since 2019. They now own multiple guns, including AR-15s, and believe the Second Amendment protects citizens from a tyrannical government. While acknowledging America's mass shooting problem, the speaker argues that guns are not the root issue. Instead, they attribute mass shootings to social engineering, which they define as the manufacturing of thoughts and reactions within society. They claim mass shootings inspire copycats seeking notoriety. The speaker suggests that mass shooters should not be publicized to prevent further incidents. They believe that the focus on gun rights is a deliberate distraction orchestrated by those in power to perpetuate political campaigning and societal division.

Speaker 0 guarantees that the person they are speaking to will help solve the gun problem. Speaker 1 confirms their support for gun confiscation and explains that if people refuse to give up their weapons, law enforcement will take them away and there will be consequences. Speaker 1 acknowledges that some gun owners believe a Biden administration will come for their guns, and they confirm that this is true.

The speaker was asked about winning the union vote despite gun enthusiasts in the union. They denied taking away guns but were interrupted. The speaker clarified they did not say that, and the conversation became heated.

The speaker responds to Mr. Massey by discussing the Second Amendment, stating that it guarantees the right to bear arms in the context of a well-regulated militia. The founding fathers believed militias were necessary for a free state and opposed standing armies as tools of tyranny. They framed the Second Amendment as a safeguard for having a militia.

The speaker believes the focus should be on mental health, not guns, stating that most gun owners are good people. They argue that the issue is a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem. They believe people should be able to defend their homes and property, and that disarming law-abiding citizens won't make the world better, especially considering the vast number of guns in circulation. The speaker questions the logic of giving up guns, stating a desire to stay alive and be capable of defending themselves against bad people. They want to be the one making the decision in a confrontation and to be trained in firearms.

'Happened to him.' The speaker contends that 'you know, sometimes revenge at dispatch are cold.' They express that they hate to to celebrate someone's death, but argue that when you talk about guns rights and you talk about how much the second amendment matters to you and then it impacts you, like, what do you expect? 'Blade.' The remarks imply a connection between staunch gun-rights advocacy and personal consequences, suggesting that the outcomes of gun-rights beliefs are tangible for the individual. The tone blends resignation about violence with a belief that ideological commitments influence real-world events, encapsulated by the question 'what do you expect?' and the final sign-off 'Blade.'

The speaker states that many rights could be gone, including those related to unreasonable search and seizure, the 5th amendment, and the 6th amendment right to an attorney. The speaker mentions the first amendment and the second amendment, stating they are in favor of the second amendment and do not believe anyone's guns should be taken away. The speaker claims someone wants to terminate the Constitution of the United States.

Speaker 0: Welcome back to Jake GTV news. Did you see ICE shooting American citizens? Speaker 1: I thought they were supposed to get rid of the illegals, though. Speaker 0: Me too. Let's go to Ching Chong on the murder scene. Speaker 1: Chloe and Michael, good morning. We're here in Minneapolis where ICE agents trained by Israel are causing chaos. We go to John for more. Speaker 0: Thanks, Ching Chong. Thought it was only Libtards who opposed this, but they are literally murdering Americans. Back to you in the studio. Speaker 2: Stand back. Speaker 1: Please don't hurt me, sir Ed. I'm here to get rid of the illegals, grandma. Speaker 0: Wow. Thanks, John. Check this out here. It's from the protest. Here we see an agent assault a woman for simply being at the protest. Speaker 3: Then Alex steps in to help her Speaker 0: get back on her feet, and Speaker 4: the agents pepper spray him and proceed to assault him. Speaker 0: They then proceed to remove his legally owned firearm and shoot him in the back roughly 10 times, not even kidding. Holy shit. Speaker 1: Please tell me they're gonna jail. Speaker 0: Nope. They're on administrative leave while the FBI pretends to care. Dude, what? Let's see what Trump's team has to say. Speaker 5: Very, very unfortunate incident. I don't like that he had a gun. I don't like the fact that he was carrying a gun. Speaker 6: You know, you can't have guns. You can't walk in with guns. You just can't. And you can't listen. You can't walk in with guns. You can't do that, but it's it's a very unfortunate incident. Speaker 7: Do you Speaker 1: agree with Trump, Steen? Speaker 6: Oh, hell yeah. Guns are bad now. Didn't you get the memo? Speaker 1: What about the second amendment? Speaker 6: It's all four d chess, honey. Trust the plan. Speaker 1: Sup, bro? How do you feel about ICE? Speaker 0: This country needs more Indians than blacks. Check your privilege. Speaker 1: Dude, when did everybody get so retarded? Was it the vaccines or something? We go to the investigation team to learn more. Speaker 8: Thanks, Ching Chung. So basically, we uncovered that not only is ICE Embassy located in Tel Aviv, but they're using the same technology they used to genocide the Palestinians. Speaker 0: It's a freaking Jewish spyware by Paragon Solutions called Graphite, and check this out. Tell me why Alex Pretty was googled a month prior to the shooting and, again, five minutes before his death. Make of that what you will. Back to you guys. Wow. Wasn't the Homeland Security's own Twitter page being run from Israel? Speaker 1: Yeah. Same with ICE's embassy, Tel Aviv to be exact. Speaker 0: Freaking Jews, man. Speaker 9: Shut it down. He was an unhinged lefty who thought our Chobus Goy Trumpstein was a dictator. He kicked the taillight the week prior, so he deserved to be gunned down like a dog. Speaker 1: Air that. Jeez, Producer Berg, chill. Speaker 0: Gosh, he's so Talmudic. Speaker 1: Right. Always victim. Speaker 0: Anyways, here's their emotional justification for cold blooded murder. Speaker 1: That was a pretty good leg kick. Speaker 0: Right? Let's get Shapiro Steen's take on this whole thing. Speaker 10: Just because we didn't arrest anyone for the Epstein files, genocide, or our poisonous mRNA doesn't mean we won't also get away with murdering Boyum. After all, he kicked a taillight. Speaker 0: Yeah. I guess you're right, Shapiro Steen. Israel is our greatest ally. Speaker 1: You're not getting a raise. Speaker 0: Discount on your only freaks? Speaker 1: Not a chance. Ching chong, take it away. Gosh, dude. You're such a weak little simp. She's a literal succubus. Speaker 0: Anyways, let's take a tour with the IDF, I mean ice. Whoops. What was your training like? We were supposed to be trained for this? Speaker 0: Yeah. We've got an antiseptic on the next block. Get ready to murder. Stop resisting. Did you see me shoot that senior citizen? Yeah. Definitely not an immigrant, he sure had it coming. Let's see what Diego's up to. Speaker 2: I will tell you this, brother. What? You know? I will tell you this. You raise your voice? I raise your voice. Speaker 1: Wow. Isn't that like against the law? Speaker 0: You'd think so but they'll end up getting paid administrative leave and mental health support. Speaker 1: Seriously? Speaker 0: Dead ass. If I Speaker 11: raise my voice, you'll erase Speaker 2: my Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 11: Are you serious? You said, if I raise my voice, you'll erase my voice? Speaker 1: Yes. Mhmm. Mhmm. Ice. You guys are saving this country. Speaker 0: Didn't they kill that American woman last week? Renee Good or something? Speaker 1: That non chosen person? She was lesbian leftist Karen. Who cares? Speaker 0: Whatever you say, Daisy. No. Speaker 7: No. Shit. Shit. Oh my fucking god. What the fuck? What What the the fuck? Fuck? Speaker 0: You might be wondering, why Minneapolis? Tim Waltz ushered in a defund the police initiative, which created a perfect opportunity for Trump's team to bring about the first AI surveillance state. You know what they say, create the problem, usher in the solution. Tom, back to you. Exactly. Speaker 0: So Peter Thiel, a close advisor to J. D. Vance, founded Palantir, the company that built the AI surveillance system used to target sand people. That same technology was sold to ICE and rebranded as Immigration OS, creating a satanic surveillance network to monitor Americans. Speaker 9: Shut it down, Tom. That's not for the normies to understand. Keep it up and I'll turn you into a lampshade like I did with Jackie. Back to the Goyslop or you're canceled. Speaker 12: Goyslop Junior's Goyslop Filet is back, and it's got more seed oils than ever. Speaker 0: I hate myself. Goyslop Junior. Speaker 7: Go on. Speaker 6: Enjoy cancer. Speaker 1: Gosh, that looks good. Speaker 0: Producer Verk said if we stop talking about Palantir, Goyslap Junior will cater to the Super Bowl party. Speaker 1: Alright. Speaker 0: Zipped. Let's just have Eric Warsaw break it down for us. Speaker 12: Palantir. The same company that is run by the hardline Zionist Alex Karp who works closely with Israeli military, will now be in charge of America's civilian data collection. We built Foundry, which was just was used to distribute the COVID vaccine and saved millions of lives globally. Palantir is here to disrupt and make our the institutions we partner with the very best in the world, and when it's necessary to scare enemies and on occasion kill them. Speaker 12: And also, the target selections for the US military, police forces, and even target selections for ICE officers. Speaker 1: That's right, Eric. We're giving our data to the Israeli Jew whose AI targeted over fifty percent of the civilian deaths in Gaza. Here he is. Speaker 7: Your AI and your technology from Palestine to kill Palestinians. Speaker 13: Mostly terrorists. Speaker 1: And by terrorists, he means anyone who opposes their families being genocided, including women and children. This guy. Speaker 9: Shut it the heck down. Say goodbye to your Goyslav junior catering. Remember what happened to Charlie? You're next. Run the freaking commercials. Speaker 0: Want to express yourself? Well, now you can. I always wonder how dumb this going sometimes can be. Speaker 7: TikTok, Speaker 0: Now owned by the Jews at BlackRock. Speaker 7: We're watching that. Speaker 0: Wow. I thought China owning our data was bad. Now you can't even say Zionist without getting flagged. Speaker 1: Straight up. It's like, give it back to China at this point. Speaker 0: Anything's better than Jews at this point. Speaker 1: Right? It's like take a freaking joke, let alone facts. Speaker 0: That's based. We go to John for some breaking news. Thanks, guys. Couldn't have said it better. And this just in, we're taking over Greenland because it was promised to us by Lucifer himself. So take it away, Satan. Speaker 14: By the way, what are we doing with Greenland? We gotta do something with Greenland. Where's my advance team? Go to Greenland. They must have some satellite needs or something that we could do there. But we are coloring the world blue. Speaker 0: So satanic. Speaker 1: Right? Isn't Greenland the central hub for the undersea data cables connecting North America, Europe, and Asia? Speaker 0: Bingo. Speaker 0: Ching Chong joins us live from Greenland. Speaker 1: We're here in Greenland, and not only is it located on a gold mine of rare earth minerals, but its freezing temperatures are the perfect natural coolant for the AI supercomputers needed to power the new world order that will enslave humanity. Eric Morsaw, break it down for us. Speaker 12: If you thought George Orwell's 1984 was a bad surveillance state, wait until you see what Israel's Palantir can do with AI technology or America. It's gonna make the movie The Matrix look mild. Speaker 1: Thanks, Eric. But to truly understand the endgame, you need to understand their ultimate prize, Jerusalem's Golden Dome. The satanic cabal believes controlling this one holy site lets them hijack God's story for billions and install the Antichrist. Let's hear what Trump's theme has to say about it. Speaker 5: We will have all everything we want. We're getting everything we want at no cost. Speaker 10: So the so the Golden Dome will be on Greenland? Speaker 5: A piece of it, yes. And it's a very important part because it's everything comes over Greenland. If the bad guys start shooting, it comes over Greenland. Speaker 1: So what he means by that is the satanic cabal is taking a piece of God's throne and putting it on their AI brain in Greenland to legitimize the antichrist. Speaker 6: Is that some sort of question? Speaker 1: How does that make you feel? Speaker 6: Get the out of our country. Speaker 10: So what are we talking about? An acquisition of Greenland? Are you going to pay for it? Speaker 5: I mean We're talking about it's really being negotiated now, the details of it, but essentially it's total access. It's there's no end. Speaker 0: We're making Iran great again, Venezuela, and now Greenland. How exciting. Speaker 1: Why can't we just fix this country? Speaker 0: Because Israel is our greatest ally. Speaker 1: Right, Shapiro Steen? Speaker 0: Well. I'm so sick of pretending we're Israel first. Speaker 10: I heard that. Just because you stupid goyim think you can expose our satanic agenda doesn't mean you won't fall for our next tie up. Dennis, shut this episode down or you're all fired. Speaker 0: Thanks, Shapiro Steen. Suck on this. Anyways, if you're still not following Jake GTV, you're either brainwashed or legally retarded. Speaker 15: I think I figured out where our data's going. Just let me hack into Homeland Security real quick, and we're in. Speaker 0: And time to get rid of their lice For antiseptic purposes, of course. Did you hear we gave Jake GTV a strike on his YouTube? Speaker 9: Oh, someone's hacked into our system. Another pizza cost. Speaker 1: Look who it is, my base fucking noticer. If you wanna stop wondering what's going on and know, check out my new book on jakegtv.com. Otherwise, just hit the like, comment, and subscribe, and I'll see you on the next one. Speaker 9: Did you hit him with a YouTube strike? Speaker 0: Sir, we did, but he's not stopping. Speaker 9: Shadow ban his accounts. We must shut him down before the red Speaker 7: heifer Speaker 0: is sacrificed.

Speaker 0 is asked about winning the union vote despite his stance on gun control. He denies wanting to take away guns and clarifies that he never mentioned it. The conversation gets heated, with Speaker 0 expressing frustration and asking for a moment. The transcript ends with Speaker 0 mentioning that there are many people who support him.

James Madison is drafting the first ten amendments. The first amendment includes freedom of religion, speech, and the press. One participant questions how freedom of speech would work, including if it protects hurtful speech. Another asks about spaces safe from free speech, while another says words are not violence. The group debates whether the government should fund fact checkers to identify misinformation and whether hate speech should be protected. One participant suggests only protecting speech that is agreed with. Madison insists all speech must be protected. The group then debates who would decide what speech is protected. Moving to the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, one participant wonders how to stop people from saying things they don't like if everyone has guns. Madison then promotes Christian Community Credit Union. He also shares a musical concept, revealing his middle name is Nathaniel, though he admits he doesn't have one. He claims to be on the $5,000 bill.

Speaker 0 argues that rights are endowed by nature and natural law, affirmed by reason, and placed under providence for safekeeping. They state that government was not formed to rule these rights, but to protect them. The claim emphasizes that the core purpose of government is to safeguard fundamental rights rather than to infringe upon them. Speaker 1 interjects with a digression, suggesting a humorous or tangential reference: “to secure a conversation about a paper document, or are we talking about Epstein here?” This remark introduces a moment of distraction from the substantive point about rights. Speaker 0 responds by focusing the discussion back to constitutional rights, asserting that all of these rights have been infringed upon. This reinforces the central claim that contemporary developments or actions threaten the protections guaranteed by the founding framework. Speaker 1 notes that in some spaces people derail discussions by bringing up ideas like sovereign law, describing such interjections as bizarre. The remark signals concern about off-topic or unproductive lines of debate that can derail conversations about fundamental rights. Speaker 0 acknowledges this concern but reiterates the core point about natural law—specifically referencing the “first built in amendments” and the Bill of Rights as actual representations of those rights. They express gratitude to God for the interjection, recognizing a moment of acknowledgment or blessing, but insist that this gratitude should not derail the main statement. Overall, the exchange centers on a foundational view that rights are inherent and safeguarded by constitutional structures, with government’s proper role defined as protection rather than restriction. There is a tension between staying on topic about constitutional protections and the intrusion of tangential discussions (such as sovereign law or unrelated digressions) that could derail the discourse. The speakers repeatedly emphasize that the natural law framework and the Bill of Rights embody the protections granted to individuals, and that infringements of these rights are a central concern of the conversation. The dialogue closes with a reminder that while external interjections may be acknowledged, they should not derail the core assertion that the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights represent built-in safeguards essential to preserving liberty.

The only obstacle to the new world order is the right of Americans to bear arms. Efforts to take away guns are driven by the intent of the Second Amendment, which was not for hunting or protection against burglars. Our forefathers established this amendment so that as long as every American owned a weapon, the government could never oppress us. Bills to take away weapons are constantly introduced in Congress, but they are often defeated. The truth is, in a town where everyone owns a weapon, crime is almost non-existent.

The speaker believes there have been attacks on the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment, with Democrats claiming it enables disinformation. The speaker argues the First Amendment exists because the founders came from countries where free speech was punished. The speaker asserts the Second Amendment is there to stop tyranny and protect freedom of speech. They have debated this, especially with people in LA who want to take away guns. The speaker asks if anyone can guarantee the U.S. will never have a tyrannical government, and since no one can, people need to keep their guns to prevent it.

"I'm a constitutionalist." "All I care about is my constitutionally protected rights and the future of my children." "we don't have a gun problem here in this nation. We have a problem with mental health and we have a problem with evil." "It doesn't matter if evil utilizes our gun, a car, a baseball bat, a machete, or a rock." "It's an operation to circumvent your constitutionally protected rights." "America, if you give up your guns, you're not gonna have any rights." "You need to stand up and you need to tell these corrupt career politicians to get fucked."

The 2nd amendment is not just for duck hunting. It's about our rights to protect ourselves from others.