➡ The article discusses the controversial use of AI and mRNA vaccines to create genetic code injections, with funding from the US Defense establishment. It also covers the topic of self-amplifying these injections to reach those who refuse to take the vaccine. The article then shifts to a discussion about gun rights and the Second Amendment, featuring an interview with the CEO of Secure It, a company focused on gun safety. The conversation touches on recent events, the importance of the right to bear arms, and concerns about government control over individual liberties, such as the right to travel freely.

➡ The text discusses concerns about the right to film police, with some arguing that it’s a necessary check on power, while others, including federal agents, view it as a threat. It also touches on the issue of surveillance, with the government having the ability to monitor citizens, but citizens not having the same right to monitor the government. The text also criticizes President Trump’s stance on individual liberties and his focus on presidential power. Lastly, it discusses the role of guns in protests, with some seeing them as a symbol of freedom and others as a cause for panic.

➡ The text discusses a court case where the Bundys were accused of being a threat, but it was revealed that the FBI had placed snipers around their home, causing fear and defensive actions. The case was thrown out when this information was revealed, thanks to a whistleblower. The text also discusses the author’s recent book, “Last Rights”, and his views on Donald Trump’s contempt for the First Amendment and use of lawsuits to silence critics. The author also criticizes Alex Jones for his change in stance on the police state.

➡ Jim has done valuable research and the broadcast appreciates everyone’s support. The speaker warns about a group trying to control and deceive the common man, and encourages sharing information found on thedavidknightshow.com to expose hidden truths. The speaker also requests for prayers if financial support isn’t possible.

➡ The text discusses the importance of individual liberties, particularly the right to bear arms, and the potential dangers of government overreach. It also highlights the need for responsible gun ownership, including proper storage and training. The speaker mentions their company, which specializes in secure, fast-access gun safes, and emphasizes the importance of keeping firearms out of sight and out of reach of children. The text concludes with a call for intelligent conversation about gun rights, rather than heated rhetoric.

➡ A man initially uncomfortable with firearms changed his perspective after feeling threatened due to rising crime rates. He bought a handgun, took training, and eventually became a Second Amendment supporter. He now owns multiple firearms and participates in shooting competitions. The story emphasizes the importance of proper training and regular practice for responsible gun ownership.

➡ The text discusses the fear of change and resistance to it, despite the constant evolution of life and technology. It also touches on the control and restrictions on firearms, particularly in New York State, and the implications for personal defense. The author encourages people to consider their personal safety and suggests that even the perception of being prepared can deter potential threats. Lastly, the author recommends trying out firearm training to see if it’s suitable for personal defense.

➡ The company designs lightweight, modular gun safes that are easy to access, especially in high-stress situations. These safes are designed to fit into discreet locations and allow straight line access to each firearm. The company’s latest innovation is a high-stress, fast access lock that can be easily opened even under extreme stress. The company also challenges the industry standard of fire ratings, arguing that they are not necessary and can even be harmful due to the corrosive materials used.

➡ The article discusses the importance of safe firearm storage and training for responsible gun ownership. The company, Secure It Tactical, emphasizes that their gun safes are designed to be easily accessible for the authorized person, yet secure against unauthorized access. They believe that proper firearm storage and security are crucial for home defense and preserving the second amendment. The company has gained popularity through word of mouth and their online presence, rather than traditional advertising.

➡ The text discusses the author’s experiences with online backlash and the tendency for people to quickly judge and vilify others based on their beliefs or affiliations. It also highlights the dangers of groupthink and tribalism, and how these can lead to a lack of understanding and empathy. The author emphasizes the importance of not letting differences in ideas or beliefs justify harm or violence.

➡ The text discusses a controversial incident involving border patrol agents and a man named Alex Preddy. The author questions the agents’ use of force and their anonymity, comparing the situation to past incidents of police violence. They also criticize the Trump administration’s handling of the situation and the lack of transparency in law enforcement. The author suggests that video evidence is crucial for revealing the truth in such cases.

➡ The text discusses an incident at Ruby Ridge, where the FBI was accused of misconduct. The author managed to obtain a confidential 500-page report that contradicted the FBI’s official narrative. This led to some FBI officials being suspended and one being jailed for destroying evidence. The author also criticizes the aggressive behavior of federal agents towards protesters, comparing it to the Ruby Ridge incident.

SAM In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. It’s the David Knight Show. As the clock strikes 13. It’s Friday, the 30th of January, year of our Lord 2026. Well, let’s hope that this weekend we don’t have an Iranian war started because as Gerald Slynty point out, Trump loves to kick these things off on the weekend and things are stacking up that way. There’s a lot of things that he doesn’t want us to see. One of the things he doesn’t want us to see is what is going on in Minnesota. There was a tremendous pushback against Jim Bovard for a tweet that he put out comparing what happened in Minnesota to Ruby Ridge.

And if you don’t remember that history, I think you’ll find this very interesting. Whether you remembered or not, there’s a lot of details that many people have forgotten and a lot of parallels to what is happening in terms of abuse of federal law enforcement. We’re also going to have the CEO of a company called Secure. It is going to join us. They have a different approach to gun safety and to gun personal security. And so we’re going to talk about that. I think you’ll find that very informative, a tactical approach to storing and using your gun.

So we’re going to have both of them and we’re going to begin with something I didn’t get a chance to talk about yesterday, which is the new RICOH lawsuit that has been filed, filed against the American Academy of Pediatricians and the cdc. Be right back. Well, a couple of lawsuits have been filed by the Children’s Health Defense and by another organization accusing the American Academy of Pediatricians as well as the CDC of conspiring on the vaccine schedule to the harm of children. Now, anybody who’s been following this knows that that’s the case. But it’s a RICO lawsuit because it is a vast fraudulent conspiracy.

If you we’ve all heard the the phrase that if you’re in academia, you publish or you perish. Except that the problem here is that if you do research and you publish that, you get punished by the CDC and by the AAP. In January 21, the Children’s Health Defense filed a sweeping racketeering, influence and corrupt organization lawsuit against aap. Now, these are the RICO statutes that are out there and the RICO lawsuits are there. And I have spoken out against them in terms of tactics used by the government to basically punish people before they’re found guilty. It’s an issue.

But in this particular case, this is a civil lawsuit. It’s a different type of thing. And I think this would be a very good case for the public because it’s going to air a lot of this dirty criminal laundry from the pediatricians, as well as the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies, who are all a part of this. It’s a vast criminal conspiracy. RICO statutes in general, they were there because they wanted to come after organized crime. They found that organized crime had tremendous financial resources and they could hire the best lawyers who could get them out of these types of situations.

So their response was to say, well, we are going to take their money first, and then we’ll have the trial. And so you would make an indictment against them, but before they were found guilty, you basically punish them by taking away their money. That evolved into civil asset forfeiture, which is basically not even coming up with an indictment or charge against people, but taking their property anyway, charging the property with a crime. And so we’ve seen the abuse of RICO statute in many different areas. But again, I think that in this civil lawsuit like this, it does get to the heart of a racketeering and corrupt organization conspiracy that is there.

So what they’re talking about here is the fact that you’ve had some of the people who are involved in this, not on the CDC side, but on the other side. These are people who have had their medical licenses revoked because of research that they published. This is how you understand that it’s a criminal organization. When they start trying to cover up the information. They hide and conceal information, whether it’s about climate science or whether it’s about the actions of the Department of Justice or whatever, the criminals are always going to lie and to cover up the data that is a hallmark of all this stuff.

One of the key things I think we want to focus on, though, is the way that this actually works. We have seen many people who have been punished when they speak out against the vaccine schedule. We have seen the difference, the harm that is done in America versus other countries that don’t have that, especially versus, let’s say, the Amish, who don’t follow this vaccine schedule. But we understand that it’s about profit. We understand it’s a collusion between the pharmaceutical industries and the cdc, one of the biggest sellers of vaccines and that type of thing. But even going back to the 1986 act that Fauci shepherded through with Ronald Reagan, where they took away liability for vaccines, for childhood vaccines, they were supposed to every two years produce safety results that came out of the VAERS database, they’ve not published a single one for nearly 40 years now.

And so that is a part of the allegations. But in terms of how this actually operates, it’s interesting to go back and look at what the immune system, what actually happens, the immune system. With so many of these vaccines given collectively in clusters, as they say on Malone News, Immune dysregulation is a mechanism of how it harms children. Vaccines are intended to train the immune system, they say, except when they’ve got a different agenda. It doesn’t make any sense to say that the vaccines are going to train the immune system and then say that a disease is not going to train the immune system.

This is the problem with virology. And as the CDC and the pharmaceutical companies are freaking out about people pushing back against the vaccine schedule, they blame it all on RFK Jr except he’s been saying this for a very long time. The reality is that people have seen the lies and the fraud associated with the COVID so called pandemic. And that is really the heart of this. And one of the things that we saw were pronouncements by Fauci saying you can’t get immunity from having the disease, you have to get it from the vaccine or it doesn’t work.

Well, that doesn’t make any sense. If the purpose of the vaccine is to train your immune system to handle the real disease, well, if you have survived the real disease, then you don’t need to have the vaccine. And so this is the argument that Rand Paul had with Fauci and but again, as I started looking these inconsistencies, it’s one of the reasons why I’ve arrived at the point where I’m no longer anti vaccine, I’m antiviralogy. It’s not a science. It’s a tool of control and manipulation and propaganda because it doesn’t hold together at all. However, if you look at the analogy of how this damages people and immune dysregulation, the example that Malone News Malone News gives says, imagine the immune system is a well organized beehive where each bee knows its role.

You can recognize response, respond and do various things. But vaccination would be essentially like kicking the beehive repeatedly while wearing a disguise. The hive doesn’t get smarter. It gets chaotic, it gets aggressive, it gets confused. Soon the bees start stinging anything that moves, including the queen, the worker bees, even the hive itself. And there’s no assurance of targeted recognition, only widespread inflammation, panic and self harm. And that’s basically what happens with today’s autoimmune epidemics that we see happening. Asthma, eczema, food allergies, type 1 diabetes, things like rheumatoid arthritis. This is the mechanism that is happening, this shock to the immune system, confusing it, causing it to attack everything, even parts of your body.

So the immune system is being artificially shaped in a way that many predispose entire generations to chronic disease. Instead of immune education, we may be witnessing immune miseducation with devastating lifelong consequences. And so it is the things that we see in terms of these adjuvants, these neurotoxins like aluminum and mercury, also known as thimerosal, which is still being put into the vaccines. I remember a decade ago when we were talking about thimerosal. Well, we don’t put that in vaccines anymore. Well, yes they do. They still put it in a lot of the flu vaccines, the ones that are put together as a collective group, instead of a single dose, they have multiple doses.

Those have thimerosal in them as a preservative, a known neurotoxin. Same thing with aluminum. And so if you remember, we were told by Alex Jones, the vaccine that Trump is doing is not like Bill Gates vaccine, it’s just sugar water. And come on, you can take a little bit of mercury and aluminum injected directly into your veins, that’s not a problem. You can do that for Trump, just inject the sugar water, Kool aid. Well, that’s not the way it works. Meanwhile, when we look at where they want to go with the MRNA vaccines, we have seen Donald Trump on his very first day when he returned to the MRNA vaccines and he tried to combine that, wants to combine that as part of this Stargate operation that he had Larry Ellison give a presentation for.

What they want to do is combine AI with MRNA vaccines to create a new level of genetic code injections. And it’s not just Donald Trump. It’s also people like JD Vance and Vivek the Snake Rama Slimy. They are also investing in companies that do self amplifying mRNA. They are giving doses, lethal doses of synthetic viral material containing artificial DNA sequences forced into animals using lipid nanoparticles. All the same things that we saw with the Trump shot that he is so proud of being the father of. But they also include, with this now, electrical pulses. The aim of the research is to develop replicon MRNA vaccines and treatment strategies.

But alarmingly, the work is being partially funded by the US Defense establishment. The usual suspects. And the purpose, why would they want to self amplify these genetic code injections. Well, for the purpose of getting this into people who are not taking the vaccine. They want to get it larger and have it spread without being able to, without having to wait for people to take the vaccine voluntarily. That is what is so subversive about all this. And of course, again, the connection to the US Military industrial complex, which Trump at Davos just proudly admitted that Operation Warp Speed was a military operation.

Cape you hadn’t noticed by now. Well, we’re going to take a quick break and when we come back, we’re going to talk to the CEO of a company called Securit and they have a different approach to securing your guns as well as making them actually more readily available to you in various places. And so it’s a tactical approach and I think you’ll find it interesting. There’s, I think, things that anybody who has a gun should think about as well as, you know, what do you train, how do you train with it and where do you store it.

These are all important issues for anybody who wants to try to defend themselves and their family. We’re going to take a quick break and we’ll be right back. Sa. Defending the American Dream. You’re listening to the David Knight show. Joining us now is Tom Kubernick and he is a CEO of a company called Secure It. They have been a military contractor in the past, but now it’s about 87% he said, is a consumer market. It’s a product that you might be interested in. If you’ve got a firearm, you want to be able to secure it, have a rapid access gun safe type of thing.

But we want to talk about second Amendment issues. It’s very timely, I think, with what is happening right now. And so we’re going to talk about the gun culture, Second Amendment in general. And so joining us now is Tom Kubernetes. Thank you so much for joining us, sir. Well, thank you very much for the opportunity. I’m looking forward to the conversation. Well, it really has been over this last weekend. People have been talking about Second Amendment rights and the gun culture from a variety of different angles has really put it front and center with this shooting in Minnesota.

And so we’ve seen some surprising statements from people that are Republicans, people that are supposed to be allies to the, to the, to the gun issue. And it’s like, you know, you shouldn’t be carrying a gun. Things that look like their perspective is that makes you instantly dangerous and a suspect. What do you think is really the threat and what direction, is it coming to us in terms of the individual liberty and the God given right of self defense? What’s your perspective on that? It’s really. There’s always the forces. There are always the forces working to eliminate this right and they will seize on every opportunity to steer and manipulate and do whatever they can.

But as you said, there’s a lot of very much pro2a people who are now making statements that would call into question like, wait a minute, what is your position? And I think a lot of that is driven. I mean a. If they’re politically connected, they want to be within a narrow realm of acceptable talking points without, you know, alienating their base. But it’s. Yeah, the second amendment sits, you know, as an icon, as one of our. It’s a fundamental right of this country, of our of citizens. And that means it doesn’t matter, you know, how bad a situation is.

It doesn’t matter. Politically correct in book, you know, the horrible nature of what unfolded is. I mean, it’s a travesty what happened. And I don’t want, I can’t get too detailed into the hows and whys because, you know, we don’t know yet they’re going to dig into this thing and pull it apart. But regardless of what happened, the second amendment is still stands for what it is. And we have the right to carry. We have a right to own and have firearms. And that right should have no bearing, no impact on the events that unfolded other than there was a gentleman who was exercising a right.

Mm. Yeah. And you know, we see this. A lot of people talk about the fact that in order for the general public at large to understand what is involved here, they need to have some contact with guns. I don’t know your background in terms of your contact with guns and how long that’s been around, assuming that it’s been a very long time. But a lot of people have hardened positions because they’re not really a part of that culture. They don’t know anything about guns, they haven’t used them. But we’re living in a time where individual liberty is pretty much despised in all different areas.

I mean, almost everybody has driven a car in this society and yet we see a lot of contempt for the right to be able to travel freely. We just had a lot of Republicans voted against the idea that we’re going to stop this kill switch that’s been mandated. You know, so they want to got a lot of Republicans who. And pretty much nearly all the Democrats who said that the government should be able to shut down your car independent of you. We should have some device somehow that’s going to be on the car, that’s going to decide whether or not you should be allowed to drive and then shut it down.

We’ve seen different things like that proposed for safety in terms of smart guns and stuff like that. Well, we’re going to have a smart car that’s going to decide whether or not you’re allowed to use it. And so even though people have had a lot of experience driving cars, being passengers in cars, and know the car culture here in America, there’s still a real uneasiness about car ownership and operation. So of course we’re going to see that with the gun culture, aren’t we? Absolutely. It’s, you know, the car thing is really strange that people are supporting this.

And I’m not, I’m surprised there’s not a bigger outrage because no, there is. There is no right to own or drive a car in our Constitution. However, the concept of a car didn’t exist when everything was drafted. And we do have a right to move about in our country. We do have a right to, you know, we’re self directed. We have the freedom to do what we want to do as long as we’re not violating someone else’s constitutional rights. So you could simply, very easily draw a conclusion that, you know, these rights we have, the car is simply a vehicle to exercise our rights.

It’s a very accepted. It’s the standard way in which we Americans move around. Yeah, the government’s going to come in and say, oh wait, we’re going to be able to shut off a right. We’re going to. Because you’re not, yes, you’re stopping a car, but you’re shutting down someone’s ability to move about freely. And you can’t argue that. Well, you still have that right. You don’t need a car. Well, in our world, I mean, anybody knows if all of a sudden, unless you live in a, in a handful of big cities with public transportation that you feel safe riding the.

Well, it is, but it’s. Again, I had a son who lived in New York, went to school there, and he was never going to own a car in New York. It makes no sense. But I live in a small town and if you don’t have a car, that is a, that’s a punishment, that’s a sentence. That’s. You are now confined. You’re not moving around. That’s right. It’s just, it’s that critical to our ability to move about freely in our country. That’s right. And of course, the drafters of the Constitution understood that the Bill of Rights is not giving us rights and our rights come from God.

What they were doing was enumerating certain ones that they knew that would be attacked at first, but they made it clear that if we didn’t mention it doesn’t mean that we don’t have that right. We haven’t surrendered anything to you. And that really is the case. When we look at their intrusion into our personal papers. They don’t have to send an officer around to rummage through our desks anymore. They can do it remotely through our devices, and they can get into our personal papers and all these other things like that. So it really is. We’re at the point where people don’t understand why we have these prohibitions against actions by government infringing on our individual liberty.

And they don’t value these things because they’ve always had them and they take them for granted. And we’re on the cusp of losing so many of our liberties, I think. And so the Second Amendment is just one of those, and it’s the one that they’ve been coming after for the longest time. I think. I think you’re. I mean, it is, but the fact that it is. I don’t know if the word is brilliantly worded, but it’s so well worded in our Constitution. Again, you said this is not a right that is given. The right is. It’s implied.

The right is at birth. It simply says the government is not going to infringe on this right. So. And that is very carefully worded in our favor. And as you just mentioned, though, what we’re seeing happening, and a lot of people are unaware of it, it’s everything else. It’s this chipping away of our individuality and, you know, working us towards. What was a. What did the new head of New York City about collectivism? This idea that we’re not individuals, it’s a collective, and the collective whole will benefit if we have. If the government has these powers.

Well, that’s. There’s no world where I could ever imagine that somehow we benefit because the government has a massive power to limit our capabilities. I don’t care what that capability is. It’s just that’s not who we are. Again, they’re not our leaders. They are simply our representatives. And when they start acting like leaders and thinking they’re in charge, that should be red flags going up all over the place. And of course, history shows Just the opposite happens when you turn over all powers to the government. So what do we do? What is real security and how from your perspective in terms of what you make available to people, in terms of the organizations? Tell us a little bit about your corporation, how you got involved in it.

Well, securit, we are the global leader in military weapons storage. We build armories all over the world and now we are in consumer products with fast access gun safes. Our methodology is a little different than in the consumer retail space. We’re the only company that, you know, we come from a military background, we look at firearms and firearm security and safes and things like that from, from the perspective of why does someone own a firearm? And that storage has to be conducive with why you own the gun. To that end, you know, everything we produce is smaller, modular, lightweight, affordable and easy.

Easy to live with. The idea of a great big heavy, you know, metal box full of drywall in your basement is just, it’s, it’s, there’s a reason so many guns in America are unsecured. Yeah, I talk to a lot of people and they all have the same statements. Oh yeah, I’ve got a gun safe, my basement, but for personal protection. I keep one next to my bed, I keep one here, I keep one there. And yes, you have that right. But when you look at the data of the number of tragedies, accidental, the things that happen annually in this country that could be prevented very simply by simply providing a simple barrier between kids, between unwanted people and your firearms, it seems like a no brainer to us.

And now, you know, we’re at a point with fast access gun safes we can easily demonstrate that it’s faster to have your gun locked in a fast access safe than to have it in a closet leaning in a corner of a room. I can demonstrate that my access in my home. You, you come into my home, you would never know I own firearms. Yet I’m, I, you know, I’m never more than two and a half seconds away from being armed. If I’m at, if I’m at my closet or at one of my locations, I can be less than a second.

I also, you know, as the owner of the company, I’m trying to prove a point. I practice access. I make sure that I’m on top of what I’m doing, but that, you know, one of our missions is to make sure every gun in America is properly secured and proper is defined by out of sight. And you know, if you’ve got little kids in your home, they don’t need to know. And once they’re old enough to understand, well, then they should go. You should teach them, train them and have them be very proficient with firearms. The more proficient people are with firearms, the safer we all are.

So it’s. I agree with that. Yeah. And we’re at the point where. One of the reasons I want to talk to you is because we’re at the point right now in our family, we have. My son has got a young toddler who’s just starting to walk. And so we’ve got to make sure that we got everything secure for him. Absolutely. And, you know, he’s at a very vulnerable age right now. Of course, you know, you never know what he’s going to do with anything. He doesn’t have the strength to pull the trigger, but who knows what he would do? So we’ve got to have this stuff secured.

And that’s the key thing. That’s absolutely. Key thing. It is. And I read and people send to me data all the time and infamous stories about accidental access to firearms. And, you know, with. With young boys, it’s a. It. I don’t want to sound. I mean, it’s more of a boy thing than a girl thing. Oh, yeah, absolutely. Young boys, train sets and guns. That’s right. We had a friend give a kid a stick and he immediately points a stick and shoots it. That was Right. A friend who she was very much did not like the gun culture and everything.

And she had a young son and she said, I finally realized that it’s just an eight. She said, I kept guns away from him, didn’t give him any toy guns. I look out and he’s got a stick and he’s going, pew, pew. Out in the backyard with a stick. So, you know, they know and they’re going to. They’re just wired for that. And so, yeah, we have to make sure we take the proper precautions with all that. That’s a key part of it, isn’t. Is. And educ. I mean, I get the argument not to have to have a gun on unsecured.

And it’s an old argument, but it’s based on old thinking. And when you look at what’s available now, there’s no reason not to. There’s no reason not to have every single firearm properly secured. We’ve developed what we call the principles of decentralized storage. And that’s really looking at your home the. The way I would look at a. Like a reactionary force in the Marine Corps. You’re trying to defend a, like a base or a embassy security force. How are we going to locate and deploy fire weapons to make this place secure? Well, look at your home the same way.

There’s. We publish a lot of information on this because the safest, most secure locations in your home to store and secure firearms are also the best locations to give you a tactical advantage in the event of a break in a home invasion or, or in some way that you’re being threatened in your home or in your car. That’s very, very important. Yeah. So, you know, what do we do to get people to understand the gun culture? And what kind of messaging do we have to worry about inside of the people who understand the importance of guns? But in terms of the way that we talk about it, you know, I think intelligent conversation is better than rhetoric.

And there’s a lot of rhetoric on both sides of this, of this conversation. And it’s my hope that on the firearm side, on the side of 2A, that people think a little bit and then speak and speak intelligently. You know, the. The Constitution is our. Is on our side. We don’t. We don’t need to have a loud, difficult, yelling conversation about firearms. We simply need to express what the Constitution gives us and what we have and what it protects and then just talk about the advantages of firearms ownership. And I think a big part of that advantage is training, is understanding simply buying a firearm does not make you more secure.

Taking the time to get training, taking the time to practice, that does. And I got real, I mean, real quick story I thought was such a huge win for the second Amendment. We worked with a software developer several years ago. He was out of California, very liberal. In fact, he questioned working with us because we were in the firearms industry. And he was very upfront about it. He just said, guys, look, I’m a little uncomfortable. I’m gonna be honest with you. I’m not a supporter of the second Amendment. I’m a little uncomfortable with the idea of working for you guys.

I simply said, look, I understand. Our mission is to make sure every gun in America is properly secured. If I achieve my mission, do you feel safer? And he agreed with me. So we started working together. And this was right when the defund police all started happening. And he was fairly close to some pretty bad events, and he was nervous about it. And he went out, he bought a handgun, and he talked to me about it. I said, look, getting the handgun is not going to help you. You need to take good training, find a good instructor.

Find when you’re comfortable with, work with them on a fairly regular basis for the first couple of months that you need to make if you’re going to own a firearm. You get to the range at least once a month. And he said it’s a commitment. And he said, okay. And was fascinating. Months later he called me, said, Tom, I got to tell you something, I love this. I’m not sure he’s, he’s now shooting. He was getting into a class, then he was joining a club where they were doing competition, handgun competitions. About four months into this, he called me, said, tom, I’m going to buy an AR15.

And I said, really? He goes, I just, I’m watching, you know, what these guys can do with the rifle. It’s a, it’s the safest gun that, that I can own in my home, which I agree with a properly owned, properly trained a person with an AR15. There’s no safer rifle in America. And he is a ultra liberal computer programmer guy who now is a second Amendment supporter. And I just watched it unfold. He felt threatened, he felt alone. His vision that law enforcement is there to protect me fell apart in the defund, you know, the defund police mode.

And all of a sudden he realized the only thing keeping me safe is luck that they don’t happen to come, the mob in the street doesn’t happen to come into my home. And he viewed it was kind of a wake up call for him. And all of a sudden he, he did the proper steps and I commend him for doing it properly. He now owns firearms. He’s in a very good position to defend himself and his neighbors. I’m sure his friends and his groups have no idea that he owns firearms. But it’s. Yeah, people have to think about that and they have to.

I’ve interviewed a guy a couple of times from South Africa and he was a missionary and he had concerns. He said, I don’t think I should own a firearm. And you know, I don’t have any interest. I don’t think I could shoot somebody or shoot at somebody. And yet there was a lot of violence in South Africa at the time. And so he said he saw people that were innocent being shot. And he said, I realize then that I have an obligation to protect innocent life, including my own. And so he got a gun and he trained on it and he only had a five shot revolver and he was attending a very large church, over a thousand people, and he was just visiting it.

But they said later on during truth and reconciliation that they had picked that church because they didn’t figure anybody would be armed. They came in the side door throwing grenades and shooting the place up with fully automatic weapons. He’s way in the back with just the revolver. But he thought, well I’m going to try. So he takes a shot and he thinks I’m not going to hit anything with that. So he ran out the side and took some shots from there and they ran off and they said later on they thought they were being attacked from multiple angles.

He didn’t realize it, but his first shot actually hit one of these guys. And so you never know in a situation like that. Here’s one guy with a revolver, five shot revolver and he was able to defend these people. Now when they came in throwing grenades and firing automatic weapons, they immediately killed about 50 people. But it could have been everybody. They were going to kill everyone in that church. And he was able to fend that off. So people have to go through these decisions again. He had to think about this as like would I be morally justified to do this in defense of innocent life? And he got the right decision and he learned how to use it as well.

Yeah. And he had a result. It’s, I always tell people, and I talk to a lot of, a lot of people on, on firearms ownership and I say the decision to buy your first firearm should be a life altering decision. You’re, if you’re going to own a firearm, which you’re going to, you know, use actively use or use for home defense, for personal defense, you’re going to change your lifestyle going forward. If you’re going to carry, if your decision is to conceal, carry a firearm, you will be shooting on a regular basis for the rest of your life.

And they’re, you know, I, I’m a very busy executive, I travel a lot and you know, I have concealed carry permit. I have all the proper, everything you need. But there’s many times in my life I do not carry a firearm because if I’m not actively training, for me it’s about decision, decision making. And if I’m, if I’ve got a long stint where I have not been training, not been shooting, I will, I’ll have it in a backpack, but I will not carry on body because I’m not in a position to, to execute that responsibility at that time.

That’s the decision I make. And some people say I’m nuts, but just, that’s just the way I do it. And it also encourages me to make sure I block out time to work with instructors to get the reps in to just do everything required. You know, my background was a musician, and we practice, rehearsed. Practice, rehearse. So when it’s showtime, doesn’t matter if you’re nervous. It’s showtime and you execute. It’s the same. It’s the same thing against the same challenges. It’s just, you’ve got deadly force. You’ve got to have it right. That’s a great way to look at it.

Yeah. My son says after the guy gets one he uses on the range for a while, he realizes it isn’t the scary, uncontrollable monster that he thought it was, you know, so you start to get to realize what it really is. It’s a tool, as you point out, you need to be experienced in the use of that tool needs to be kind of second nature. You know, there’s a lot of different attacks that are coming at us in a lot of different ways. And of course, I don’t know if you saw this or not, but the whole 3D gun printer thing, which they really are upset about, there’s a new law that’s being pushed out in Washington.

And what they’re trying to do is, even though this has been upheld as a kind of a combination of the First Amendment and the Second Amendment, the code for printing gun parts was held to be protected by the First Amendment by courts. It was challenged by Cody Wilson, and they won that fight. So now the idea of the state government in Washington state is to. We’re going to intimidate this, and we’re going to do it as a partnership with the printer manufacturers. So in order for them to be able to sell the printer manufacturer, they’re going to have to set up a mechanism whereby we can prohibit the printing of anything.

And when the guy started talking about this, this guy is a 3D printer guy, and he’s not really focused necessarily on just printing guns, but when he talked about it, everybody thought, oh, you’re just talking about printing guns and we should shut that down. He says, no, this is about everything. He says, if you’re a farmer and you want to print a 3D part for your tractor, and John Deere says, no, that belongs to us. They can prohibit that as well. And so when we look at this, there’s this massive interconnection of freedoms. And once we start to pick and choose and micromanage which freedoms are going to be exercised and how they’re going to be exercised, we all wind up losing everything in the end, don’t we? I think so.

I find the 3D printing, I actually follow quite a bit of that. I’m fascinated by the technology. I restore old cars as one of my. That’s my therapy. And I’ve. I’ve always talked to people about there’s gonna come a time where you don’t buy parts, you buy the drawing and you simply print the parts. Yeah. And that’s. That’s a long ways down. But printers are getting so inexpensive and the technology is getting so cheap, but it’s. It is new. And to. When there’s so many people, such a high percentage of our population that is afraid of change, and it doesn’t matter what the change is.

You see resistance to change, yet every morning it’s a new day. Every day. This. You know, the second hand is moving, and every mo. Every second goes by, things are changing and advancing. We should embrace this technology. There’s so much good. Yeah. You’re talking about car parts. You know, Jay Leno’s been doing that for a while because he’s got these very old cars that he’s got and nobody’s making any parts for them. We’re going to see that as well for much newer parts, because it’ll either be the situation where there’s not enough of them out there, or maybe the government might even prohibit it because they don’t want you driving the old cars that aren’t completely connected to their control.

So that is also another aspect for people to think about. It all comes down to the point where they always want to know everything that we’re doing and micromanage everything that we’re doing and centralized control of everything. And that’s. That seems to be the current thread of where everything seems to go. And that’s where the stuff has been coming from for the longest time for firearms. You know, centralized the control of firearms from Washington and then start shutting them down one by one. Yeah, it’s. I’m surprised some of the things that have happened recently. I live in New York State.

We have the SAFE act, where now I have to do a background check, a state background check to buy ammunition. I don’t. I don’t see. I don’t see how this is not been thrown out yet. I’m not sure it’s been adjudicated. It’s a cr. It’s a crazy rule. I’m limited in terms of magazine size. I’ve. I’ve got my limits into. There’s a list of guns that I simply cannot own in the state. Wow. And it’s an annoyance. I mean, as for me, when I look at home defense, the actual firearm that I would use to defend myself, I can legally own.

Can I own a 30 round magazine? I cannot. It’s a 10 round magazine. So that, that changes a little bit of the aspect of how you use it. But is there a limit on how many magazines you can have? For example? Right now they just want you to change out to another one. But it’s, it’s, again, it doesn’t matter what the rule is. It’s that there’s a lot of people within our government that just, they’re going to chip away at anything they can do. And it’s just a big pile of dirt of freedom in the middle of this room and any bit they can pull into their little bucket and eliminate, they’re going to do it.

Yeah, and sometimes I’ve seen people like Tom, why, why are you taking on this fight? This is really stupid. I said the, you know, I hate to use the term slippery slope. That’s overused. But it applies. Yes, some, sometimes you, you fight, you fight so hard for grains of sand because you’re, you’re stopping something that’s going to be, that could become a tidal wave. That’s right. And a lot of people, I mean you see it just across, across the world. A lot of people don’t react until it hits them personally. At that point they’ve missed their window.

That’s right. You know, well, it’s like Hemingway said, you know, the guy who went bankrupt, that’s very rich. Has that happen. He said gradually, then suddenly. That’s why we have that analogy of a slippery slope. Yeah, that’s what happens. At first it’s just a short little thing, but then it really picks up speed and it accelerates. If you don’t stop the trend. If you don’t see the trend that’s coming. No, you can stop a car rolling downhill. If the brakes don’t work and the car’s just starting to move, you can stand behind it and stop it.

Once it’s going five miles an hour, you better get out of the way. And that’s, you know, it’s, it’s. We’ve done a good job of stopping these freight trains. I really, I mean we’ve, I, I believe society’s done a good job. And I think the defund police was a huge as, as much as it just shocked me what was happening. There were more Two way supporters created when those, when those laws, that was those, I mean laws, it’s those, those Sentiments. Those things are being pushed forward in cities like Minneapolis, which I used to do a lot of business.

There was a beautiful city, beautiful downtown. It’s never going to recover. And there’s a lot of people that live there that for the first time in their lives woke up saying, there’s nothing preventing chaos from walking into my apartment or my condor, my home, except luck. And I hate it. I hate to see things like that happen. To drive support for what I believe in is just the, the simplest way and the best way to live. But we’re at another point now where, you know, Trump is a lightning rod like him, or he is a lightning rod personality.

And there are people that will go against the Second Amendment, just a small, just, just because he’s on that side. I think it’s very short, a very narrow focus. Yeah. And he doesn’t, he’s not very comfortable himself with it either because he’s never had any experience. I saw the interview with Scott Bessant and that really got my, got my attention over the weekend where he said to Jonathan Carl, his sound bite that he came prepared to talk about was, do you go to a protest with a gun? You know, do you, do you go to protest? He kept asking a question over and over and he kind of got Jonathan Carl to back down.

Well, I haven’t really covered protests as a reporter and no, I haven’t carried a gun either. And I thought about that and I thought, I bet Scott Besant hasn’t carried one either because he’s got an army of people to protect him all the time that are armed. That was before he got into government even. He was somebody who was very, very wealthy with George Soros and he’s got his own army of bodyguards who are armed to protect him. He doesn’t need that. And so you have people who grow up or live in that kind of a scenario.

They don’t see the need for self defense because they’ve got an army of paid people who do it for them. And they really can’t sympathize with what we’re doing, especially if they’re coming from New York. They spent all their life in New York and never touched a gun. They really don’t really understand what’s going with it and they never will. I mean, having to show a force, the guards around you, it’s not just that you’re protected, it’s that you’ll never even see it because the bad characters, I always equate them to like bullies in school. The bad guys aren’t looking for a fight, they’re looking for a pushover.

And any, any bit of resistance perceived or otherwise, they’re going to move on. They’re not, you know, if they believe for a minute that you might have a firearm, they’re not going to bother you. Yeah, they’re going to look. They’re going to look. They want the easiest target. They’re looking for, you know, all these. They’re looking for pushovers. And I talk about home defense. And I said, guys, all you got to do is make your home look a little more secure than the next house down the street, because the, the robbers, the burglars are going to go for the easiest target.

And that happens in personal safety. When you’re looking at personal threats against you, you know, just tell people, just walk. Walk like you mean it. When you’re walking through an area that you’re a little concerned, stand up tall, bold, walk with so much purpose like you’re ready to just take on the world. Because a bad character is going to look and say, I don’t know who that is. But again, if you’re walking with your shoulders down, slow your head down, kind of plodding along, you just look, I mean, you look like an easy mark. That’s right.

Sometimes that’s a difference. And, you know, the weak. You’re the weak animal on the edge of the herd right there. Absolutely. The predator is going to pick you off with that. Yeah. Most people I know that shoot and train and carry firearms. You can just look at them and you’re not going to mess with them. They’re not going to draw them. They’re never going to be in a situation to draw the firearm because the fight’s not coming to them. The fight’s going to the weak character. So, you know, the more we can do to get people who feel or may feel vulnerable to just pause.

You don’t need to go out and buy a firearm. Just go to a training center and take a class. They will walk you through everything. They’ll provide you with a firearm to try and get good instruction. Do it properly and see how you feel. See if it’s for you. You know, it’s, it’s. Well, tell us a little bit about your products. You’re free to do a commercial here. Tell us a little bit, tell us a little bit about how these things operate and, you know, what your design objectives are for it and how they may be or.

I’ve seen a lot of these. I don’t know if that’s your Product or not, that you wouldn’t know that that’s a safe. You know, it looks like a bookshelf or something like that. Well, ours, ours do look like safes. And what we do, we take 25 years of building military armories into a line of consumer products. Our safes are smaller and they’re lightweight. And that’s one of the biggest points of difference of us. Gun safes are big, heavy boxes because they believe when people see heavy, they think security. There’s nothing, weight has nothing to do with security.

Gun safes are breached with a circular saw and a carbide blade. If you look at any bit of crime data, they simply ignore the locks, they cut a hole in the side of the safe. My safes are, you know, the same thing can happen, but our safes are small, modular, shallow, designed to go into closets, designed to go into discreet locations. And then we store firearms per military principles, where it’s straight line access to every firearm. You open the door of my safe and you’ve got straight line, one arm, one gun, you’re never digging through guns.

Everything is, you can glance at the safe, you know, everything’s there. And we also integrate gun and gear storage. You know, it’s a very modular scalable system. Our gun safes in the military are referred to as the Lego rack and the Tetris rack because the armors just start at the bottom of each one and just build like, like Legos. They build exactly what they need in every single set, every single cabinet to solve their problem. Our consumer products do the same thing. Our most recent breakthrough is what we call HSFA locking. High stress, fast access locking.

We were hosting a training event just to learn more about access, to learn more about scenarios that unfold. And we were doing force on force training in a shoot house where we were simulating home invasions and office break ins. And we determine when you trigger someone into fight or flight. And these guys were all experienced shooters, but when we could trigger them into that panic mode, they could not open a simple gun safe. The buttons they could. Because when you go fight or flight, you lose fine motor skills, you develop tunnel vision, your cognitive abilities reduced.

So I got back from that event and a day later I had this new lock design drawn up. Within six months it was incorporated across our entire line. And it’s a locking solution. It’s a very simple, very secure, but it’s designed to give you the fastest possible access when you’re under a very high stress. Like if somebody home invasion, you’ve got a Second and a half, two seconds, maybe somebody’s shooting at you, you’re in panic mode. Our locking solution puts you in a position to retrieve your firearm very quickly and defend yourself. That’s the newest thing we’ve done.

So how does it open up? It’s just push button locks which releases the safe and you simply. It’s a handle. You just turn a handle, open the door. Ergonomically, we position all the guns so that, and we have videos on how to set up your safes for fastest possible access, whether it’s a rifle or a handgun. And it positions a firearm. So I retrieve the firearm, I retrieve it. Like for me, if it’s an AR15, left hand on grip, it comes up and in a one simple motion, I’m in a ready position to defend myself. With handguns, the door accessing is a little different.

Again, we’re positioning things so the safe pops open. When the firearm comes out of the safe, you are in a low ready position or high ready, depending on the location of the safe. But it’s, we’re the only company that really thinks about the ergonomics and the, the actual flow of what people are doing when they need to access a firearm very, very quickly. So we really, and this goes back to our military working with the Marine Corps, the reaction force teams working with special forces, the, the, the high speed teams where everything has to be seconds, everything.

And it has to be, you know, the old slow is smooth, smooth is fast. We follow that idea that the simplest path is usually the best. The, there’s, there’s just, it’s, what we do is very simple. It’s just nobody in firearm storage ever thought about it. My, you know, gun safe. Nothing wrong with gun safes. They’re just all the same. It’s a big box full little W’s and you pack all your guns in there. We also do not, we do not offer fire ratings on our core products. Fire ratings are nonsense. It’s, it’s. If we can get it out quickly.

Well, quickly, if there’s a fire, you can get it out. So the whole fire rating system, the whole fire rating system is not honest. It’s, it really. I’ve done, I posted a lot on this. It is a horribly flawed system. No, your guns will not survive in a hot fire. They won’t. And even if they look okay, you’ll never know how hot they got. Your hardened steel is not hard. Your annealed barrel may not be annealed. You’re never going to shoot them again. We do make one. We call it the true safe. It’s a double walled, cement filled safe.

We make it to prove a point that if you want fire safety, fire capacity, fire rating, this is what it takes. It’s a beast. It’s, I mean, it’s just under £2,000. When you buy from us, we install it, we send a crew, they install it. You’re never going to move this thing. Do people need it? No, we made it to prove a point. We do sell and they’re very popular with coin collectors, we find, but we do sell a handful of them a month. But really we made it just to show the gun industry, the world this is what a fire rating is.

This is what it takes. But you don’t need a fire rating. The risk of your home burning down is so rare that, you know, going through all that nonsense and all that weight and all the, the materials they use are all banned from use in armor. The drywall, the carpeting, the adhesives is all very corrosive. You know, the reason the industry sells millions of dollars of anti corrosion products, because a traditional gun safe is very corrosive. You know, our, all of our products, our civilian, are all made to the same military standards. And we don’t recommend using any of those products.

You simply clean your guns properly, they’re never going to corrode. It’s, and that’s kind of our whole position in the consumer market. We are the, I don’t see, redheaded stepchild, but we’re the guys, we’re the outlier. We’re the disruptive force in the industry trying to drive. We’re trying to change an industry that’s just been doing the same thing for 65 years. So your perspective is very different. You’re looking at this as, how do I store this so I can get quick access to it? Instead of, you know, how do I make this thing withstand a hurricane and a fire and all the rest of this stuff, you know.

And now let me ask you, how do you go from a locked standpoint to being able to open it quickly? You were talking about pushing a button and getting it. Okay, so our locks are all, I mean, we have biometrics within our locks, but we would never ever recommend use of a bi, like a push, you know, biometric fingerprint readers. Those are for convenience only because if you’re hands are wet, it won’t open. Your hands are dirty, it won’t open. If you’re wearing gloves, it won’t open. We want everybody to use the keypad. Again, our, our fast access keypads work very well.

But when you buy my safe, if you’ve got an under the bed safe for a shotgun, every night when you go to bed, turn the lights off, you’re going to reach down quietly and smoothly, do your combination, open the safe and close it, go to bed. You’re going to do that every night for the first 36 nights and then you’re going to do it every week. And what you’re doing is you’re building muscle memory just like a musician playing an instrument. And when you do that, Once you go 36 days, you’ve now ingrained that. You’ve hardwired that in your subconscious.

Regardless of your state, you’re going to open that safe incredibly quickly and very smoothly. So that’s, you know, we have a whole curriculum of train with your safe. People with handguns, always, they practice their dry fire routines, they practice their draw. If you’re actively, I mean, if you’re concealed carry, if you’re into this, you know, part of the second amendment, you should be every morning doing your dry fire routines. I sit on a, on a slack line balancing just for added, added, I don’t know, just, just, just a workout thing. And I do dry fire drills every morning.

And I’ve been doing that for years because that’s, it’s just getting those reps in is so important. Same thing with my locking system is every time you go, if you got a small safe in your closet by your front door, which is a great location to store firearms, every time I pull a coat out to just reach in without even looking, I can open up that safe and remove a firearm in less than a second with my eyes closed because I’ve done it probably 2,000 times. And that’s, that’s kind of how we look at the whole thing is the, you know, the gun safe industry has a safe as a passive piece of equipment that’s in your basement that you go to after your day is done with training or hunting or whatever you’re doing.

We look at firearm storage as integral to the process of defending your home, the process of defending your life. So we want that access, that using that lock to be part of your process. It’s another holster. In other words, that’s the term we’ve used, a holster for your home. And that’s how we look at it. The other side of our system is gun and gear storage. The amount of gear. And this happened at the military first. You know, we got involved with the military because they were Fielding so much high value gear, their armories just couldn’t hold it.

And part of our, our system is that ability to store gear behind, above, around with your firearms in a very organized manner. So we have a real advantage our systems. When you open the doors up of a safe that’s really, really decked out and take a picture of it, everybody goes, holy cow, that looks good. And that’s, you know, our, we made Inc. Magazine’s fastest growing companies in America twice in three years. And we never, we never spent any money on advertising. It was all word of mouth. It was just photographs of what people were doing with our system and it just went crazy.

So it’s, I think we’re winning this idea that of, you know, for what we do, storage and security are integral to safety and you know, home defense. And that really is the vulnerability that we have. You know, we have if people don’t use the firearms reasonably, then that opens us up to the attack on firearm ownership. Absolutely. From a safety standpoint. So part of preserving the second amendment is preserving your life and preserving the safe storage of these items as well. It absolutely. If we always say if every firearm in America was properly secured, would we be fighting so hard for the second amendment? Because you’re going to eliminate so many, what I call them stupid, so many, the accidental, the things you read about, you just, you just, you know, you roll your eyes, you drop your head, it’s a tragedy.

But just like, my God, it was so easy to prevent that. It’s, we live at a time now where there should never be a child getting access to a firearm or a friend at a party who’s drunk or you know, there’s, there’s, it’s real easy now to keep firearms secured, yet very, very available to the, to the authorized person. Yes. And of course, you know, we see elements of this when it comes to automobiles as well. Right. And you know, when people don’t use automobiles responsibly, then that puts all of us, us in a position of having our rights stripped away with that.

And of course, since so many people don’t have experience with firearms at all like they do with cars, whenever they see something like this, they think that that is characteristic of everybody rather than just one irresponsible person. So it’s really important for you personally and it’s important for us collectively to protect the second amendment, but the key thing is for your own use. And so, so I really like the idea that you got that it’s another holster that’s there that you Train with it to be able to open it up very quickly. That’s a great idea.

Again, the company is. Yes, go ahead. Sorry. It’s Secure It Tactical. We’re working hard to get this message out. We’re slowly winning it. It’s just not easy. We’re trying to change the way people think and that takes time. It just does. But we’re slowly winning this war. Yes, yes. And so the company, again, folks, is Secure It. What is your website? Is it secureit.com? yes, secureitgunstorage.com and Securit Tactical is our military site. If you just Google the word Secure it, we’re all over the web. That’s great. Thank you so much. Fascinating story. And we’ll be looking at it ourselves, I’m sure.

So thank you very much, Tom. I appreciate it. Tom Kubrick and Secure It Gun Storage. Thank you so much for joining us. All right. Thank you. Thank you. And by the way, I should mention that they don’t sell these in the stores because as you heard, they’ve got a lot of training information on the site and that really does show how to use the product, how to train with the product. So they’re very much integrated into an online presentation. So just check out the website. You can find them online. If you look for Secure It. Making Sense common.

Again, you’re listening to the David Knight Show. Joining us now is James Bovard. You can find him@jimbovard.com he writes for a variety of outlets and has for many, many years. He is a libertarian or we could say a classical liberal because that’s something that Stephen Miller’s wife doesn’t seem to understand. She thinks that’s the same thing as of course, there’s a lot of things that they don’t understand, aren’t there, Jim? But he had a very interesting op ed piece on mises.org the latest federal killing in Minnesota echoes Ruby Ridge. And I think he’s really right in a lot of different ways.

We’re going to talk about how it is similar to that. You know, if you’re around at that point in time, that should be etched indelibly into your memory, what happened with Ruby Ridge and Branch Davidians and things like that. But even at that time, a lot of people were not really following that very closely. And of some of the people who are following it, I think they’ve forgotten the details of it. They certainly have forgotten the lessons of it because there are a lot of parallels here in this and we need to learn those lessons. So we can stop repeating these things over and over again.

Thank you for joining us, Jim. Hey, thanks very much for having me on. Thanks. And thanks for not forgetting about Ruby Ridge. How could I? It’s amazing. Gary Spence did a great job in that trial. And again, what an interesting character he is in terms of defending Randy Weaver and. Well, not defending him, but in terms of getting some compensation for him. But you can never compensate, really, for what he lost. Let’s talk a little bit about the parallels, but tell. Tell us you put up a tweet that really went viral about this, which is the basis of your article.

I guess that’s why you decided to write the article. You had a lot of people take exception to you drawing parallels. Exception? Yeah. I mean, with their pitchforks and torches. Yes. Yeah, it was interesting. If you go back to folks who were politically conscious in the 1990s, people who were skeptical about government power, both liberals and conservatives and libertarians, Ruby Ridge was a rallying cry for what happens when the government is off a leash and when federal agents have a license to kill. As. As federal judge Alex Kaczynski said, the. The Ruby Ridge case, you had the federal FBI snipers were given a.

Basically a 007 license to go out and kill people. Yeah, that’s right. The basic rules of engagement where if you see the adult males outside the cabin, kill them. You know, no warning or anything. Even though they had never fired upon the federal. They never fired upon the FBI, so. But we’ve seen that over and over again. I talked about how apparently with this absolute immunity, these people are all double oh, 7s. I said, I don’t know, maybe that refers to their iq. Well, I had that impression. I was wondering about that with some of the feedback I was getting.

It was. It was interesting to see the absolute instant hatred for. For. For drawing a parallel between what happened at Ruby Ridge and the killing of the Alex Preddy in Minneapolis last Saturday. Yeah. And it was. It was funny. It’s been a while since I. Since I had that much visibility on Twitter. And it’s interesting how the standard insults have changed, because now it just seems like about response. They were just like, you a retard. Yeah, exactly. Or, okay, boomer, I think. Is this the best you can do? Is this the best deprecation you have in your arsenal? Do a retard.

I try to go back and forth with these people, and then they start flinging the F word in every direction. And, you know, I like George Carlin. There’s a time and a place for The F word, it can be effective, but when you’re just kind of. When this is all you have, like, you know. Well, they don’t even know what deprecation is. They’d have to look that up if they could even spell. Oh, yeah, yeah. Well, so, yeah. So most. So the most common retort was retard. And the second most common report was Boomer. Yeah. Oh, that’s it.

Yeah. Boomer. Yeah. And I mean, okay, so I know how to read. You know, there was. Yeah, there was. There was some guy was a. Who kept attacking me and he was making such ignorant comments. I finally said, you know, maybe what we need is a GoFundMe drive to get you hooked on phonics, to get the software programming so he can read. That didn’t seem to make him happy. So, you know, I tried. I tried. There were other folks that said, you know, good luck with your grammar, you know, because they were just. If you’re going to call someone a retard, you should be able to spell your entire sentence correctly.

You know, otherwise it kind of boomerangs, you know, it’s not a good look. You reply to them. Okay, boomerang. There you go. So what was the tweet? What exactly did you say in the tweet? Oh, that’s a good question. Let me pull it up here. I’ve got this reopened. It was. It was interesting. There was. I’d at first. First commented on the. On the Ruby Ridge thing, first parallel on late Saturday. And then I was getting so much hostile feedback. So. So what I did. This is an article in the parallels. In both cases, the feds suppress evidence, brazenly lied about what happened, exaggerated the threat to federal agencies and offered bizarre justifications for their killings.

Yeah, that is. Let’s see. Yeah. And that’s. And we can start out. We could add to the. On my list, I made a similar list like that. The needlessly aggressive use of force which seems to be a hallmark of our government anymore. Yeah. And that was a point, you know, that I made in the Macy’s article on how the latest killing echoed Ruby Ridge. But it’s interesting because you have so many people who are conservatives who understood after January 6, right. 2021, after the Biden folks came in and vilified everyone, every Trump supporter who’d been in the same zip code as the US Capitol.

That’s right. And tried to ruin your lives. And you had the FBI formally classifying all these January 6th cases, 800 or more of them, as terrorism cases. That’s right, because someone walked into a government building. Yeah, I talked about that. And one in particular, I think one of the most egregious ones I saw was you had a couple of elderly guys that were there and they had their middle aged, one of them, middle aged son. And they walk up, the doors are open, going into the Capitol building and they got a couple of cops here and said, is there a restroom around here somewhere? Yeah, sure, go around here.

They go in and use the restroom. And that’s all they did. They come back out and as they’re getting ready to go back out the same way they came in, there was a female cop and she says, no, no, no, go this way. She’s pointing, trying to get them to go onto the floor of the Capitol building, trying to entrap them. And they did charge them because that’s why that came out was because they actually wound up charging them with that. You would think that they would have a memory of that and a perspective of it, but they’ve got like the memory of a fruit fly.

It’s absolutely amazing. They can’t understand these different principles and the similarities that are there. And that’s a big part of it. It’s a big part of the groupthink that’s there. The tribalism that is there is that they’re going to go through with a fine tooth comb and they’re going to identify how this person over here was a bad person. We’ve got an ad hominem attack and they’re not part of our tribe. So it was justified. That’s basically when you peel back all the layers of this onion. That’s what it really gets down to when you see the, this, this rabid response that I’ve seen from a lot of people on social media.

Yeah. It goes back to what historian Henry Adams said 100 years ago. Politics has always been a systematic organization of hatreds. Yeah. And it was, it was, it was intriguing to see the push button hatred after the, after the protester got killed and to see. And it was funny because I was posting stuff on Facebook and then on. They’re on Twitter. And so late on Saturday I said, well, you know, you know, there was a, there was a TV station there in Minneapolis, I think it might have been an ABC station, and said that, that actually if you look at the video, it looks like the, the federal agent had taken away the guy’s gun before he was shot.

And oh my God, you would think I had just, you know, made the biggest heresy in the world because the outrage. How could anybody say that? And it was like I was. It was like I was trying. It was almost like we were supposed to think the federal agents had somehow performed a miracle by saving everybody from getting shot by this guy. Like it would. Was that Stephen Miller or was. Or was that Bobino? I think it was Bobino who said, yeah, the agents did a really good job because they stopped this guy from killing police.

Yeah. And I’m thinking by that standard, they’re going to kill everybody. The demonstration. Well, you know, it really has. That’s one of the things I remember most about Ruby Ridge and then about Waco as well, was how people lined up as to whether or not they liked David Koresh and his group if they didn’t like him. Oh, yeah, do whatever you want to. To him. I’m a Christian. And so I looked at that and I saw these people said, well, you know, we don’t like this guy. We think he’s. His theolog is aberrant, and they do weird things in their church and stuff.

So, yeah, yeah, go after this guy. I’m not part of. I don’t want to be associated with him. And so they basically were cheering the incineration of men, women and children. It’s like, what in the world is going on here? But of course, you see that now over and over again, like you pointed out, systematic organization of hatred, you know, which is really happening. Yeah. And it was the same thing with the. With Ruby Ridge. The part of what happened is the feds were very quick to vilify. Vilify their victims being the Randy Weaver and his wife, primarily, they had some bad ideas.

And in the writing that I did about it, I was very careful not to say, well, you know, maybe they’ve got a point. No, no, no, no. I mean, these are bad ideas. But then there are a couple people out there who think that I have bad ideas. That’s right. So, you know, I, you know, I don’t want to give the feds a license to kill people with bad ideas. But this is what. What a lot of the people who want. Want the government to fight extremism. This is what it turns out to be. People who have different ideas than you do is that, well, you know, gotta take them out, you know, I mean, it’s.

It’s hard. It’s hard to have. If. Have free speech if someone’s hateful. And what’s the difference? A definition of hateful disagrees with me, so. But we’ve seen that ever since the Clinton Administration. So. And of course, you know, when we look at the way people responded first to the killing of Renee Good, what I noticed was the MAGA people came out, said, oh, she’s LGBT and she was part of an organization that got some Soros money or whatever. And it’s like, okay, well, you do realize Scott Besant is part of that, that LGBT movement, and you do realize he got a lot of Soros money, didn’t he? He worked as a partner with the guy for a long time.

And yet, you know, they’re completely blind to that because now this guy is, he’s whitewashed, he’s baptized or whatever because Trump picked him and he’s working with Trump and the same type of stuff. If you equated Ashley Babbitt to Renee Goode, which I think was a good comparison because they were both shot at point blank range when they were no threat to anyone. And yet they came back and said, yeah, but look, you know, she’s, I don’t like what she did with this or what she says about that. I don’t like her lifestyle or whatever. So again, it’s the demonization of this kind of thing.

And now we’ve seen it. They kept digging and digging. It took a lot longer for them to find something on Alex Preddy, but what they were able to find on him was a BBC video where he got into a fight with some border patrol agents or something like that. I don’t know if you’ve seen that or not. That went viral yesterday. Yeah, I haven’t watched all of it, but I’ve seen it. But yeah, so here’s my thought. The tail light out and it’s like, okay, but they didn’t kill him that day. And would that justify him being killed that day even? And he wasn’t doing that the day that he was killed.

He wasn’t doing anything like that. Yeah, there was a story that I wrote that came out on the day before he was shot that said, look, I mean, you have protests you’re going to have. Because there’s almost always people who behave like at protests. And same thing, if you got police, you’re also going to have a Hollywood. That’s true, that’s true. So there’s, there’s an interesting point here on the, looking at the, at what Alex Preddy did before he got shot. So we don’t know the names of the two federal agents who shot and killed him.

Him. And I would be very interested to see what their records were to see if they had a, a record of abuse of force or if they had shot somebody else before or, you know, or if they were new hires. Yeah. So, I mean, this is, this is a real big, this is something which comes up in, in big cities if some cop shoots someone, especially if the cop has shot people before and especially if there was any kind of pattern to the cops killings or shootings. This is, this is very germane to make any kind of judgment.

But the, the Trump people have decided we have no right. I mean, I don’t know when or how federal agents got the right to kill anonymously. Yeah, that’s right. That’s right. But this is, this is, this is what it is at this point. And it’s, it’s funny, but I mean, it’s, it’s kind of a variation of what we saw a couple months ago. There was a lot of controversy initially about how the, how our war Department had done a second hit on the survivors. Yes. Out there near Venezuela. And you know, it was, there was video of that killing and I guess it was being seen on Capitol Hill.

Then all of a sudden our Secretary of War Hagseth comes out and says, well, of course we can’t make that public. As confidential as got this and that. And it’s like, you know, so it’s a license to kill. Yeah. But the thing is, you know, he put out and bragged about their shots against these boats in the past. And I said that about the, this was, I think, wasn’t the circle back where they killed the shipwrecked people. I think that was the very first strike they did. And I said of the video that he put out proudly, I said that’s criminal.

That’s an act of war. They didn’t interdict that. There’s clearly processes for them to check people if they suspect them of being drug dealers. And again, I don’t agree with any of the war on drug stuff, but they have their own rules about that and they violated all the rules. Well, and it’s interesting trying to figure out if there’s laws or constitutional rights that the Trump administration is going to recognize and uphold. Hold. Yeah. For anything. Yeah. I mean, because it’s, you know, trying to understand what went down in Minneapolis. I mean, it’s, it’s amazing that the first response by the dhs, by Bovino and people like that was like, well, people have got no right to know their names and we’re going to shift them out of the state.

So, so they can’t be held legally liable by Minnesota officials. It’s it’s like, where did they get the right to kill in Minnesota? I mean. Yeah, this is, this is, this is not a recognized federal. Right. But there again, it goes back to Ruby Ridge. And you had the FBI sniper who killed the mother holding her baby by the cabin door. Yes, and I’ll never forget his name. It’s been burned in my memory. That’s right, yeah. And. And you had the Janet Reno and the Clinton Justice Department and the Clinton President Clinton moving hell and high water to block any prosecution by the state of Idaho of the FBI sniper, even though a confidential justice department report said that his, his shot that killed Vicki Weaver was totally illegal and unjustified.

That’s right, yeah. Recount some of the details about Ruby Ridge because it has been a while for people and even people who were following it at the time. You know, there was a lot at the time we didn’t. The Internet can be both good and bad. But I gotta say that, you know, when Ruby Ridge happened and then when you had the very long standoff there with Branch Davidians, it was a bit difficult to get information because the only thing you could get was mainstream media whitewashing of stuff. And we did have a bulletin board that I was a part of at the time, but there was no Internet.

Right, right. So people in the area were getting information and putting it out. And of course it wasn’t verified, but of course we knew that the stuff coming from mainstream media was verified BS So it was interesting to look at these things in real time. But go back and recount some of the things with Ruby Ridge. Did you see a parallels to what’s happening? Okay, well, I’ll start giving a thumbnail. Ruby Ridge here. It started when the. When an undercover alcohol, tobacco and firearms ATF agency entrapped Randy Weaver into selling a sawed off shotgun. It was a.

A Then on August 21, 1992, three U.S. marshals dressed in ninja outfits and with face masks illegally intruded on Weaver’s land and ambushed Weaver’s 14 year old son and a 25 year old family friend, Kevin Harris. The. The marshals fired submachine guns at the, at the, at them and killed the boy’s dog. A firefight ensued. Ensued. A U. S. Marshal was killed. As the boy was running back home towards his family’s cabin. A marshall. A marshall shot him in the back and killed him. Yeah. Yeah. What? And, and it was a big issue then in the justice department confidential report was that the marshal service never separated the different marshals who had, who had killed the boys and been in the firefight and gave them.

Thereby giving them a chance to create their own cover story, which was later proven to be completely false. But so the marshals gave a storyline to the FBI that made the FBI panic. The next day, FBI snipers arrived. Within an hour of them taking position, every adult in the Weaver cabin was either dead or severely wounded. Even though they never fired a shot at the FBI. You had FBI sniper Horiuchi shot Randy Weaver in the back as he stood outside his shack and then fired a shot that killed Vicki Weaver by the cabin door as she was holding her baby.

Now, the FBI initially said that they were justified in killing Vicki Weaver because she’d been in the front yard firing at the FBI helicopter. That was a complete scam. And that fell apart. And so once that story fell apart, the FBI said they killed her accidentally. That sounds like Christine Ohm’s thing. The agents were stuck in the snow, they were attacking officers. I mean, they’re just making this stuff up. The contempt for everybody. It reminds me of what Jake Tapper just said to one of these guys. The guy’s going on and on about what happened with this Alex Preddy thing.

And he goes, you do realize there’s video of this, don’t you? Well, and that that’s the only reason why we’ve got a chance in hell of getting the truth on this. Because if you think of the initial storyline that the Trump top officials put out on the Alex Freddy shooting, he had his 9 millimeter pistol out and he was assaulting law enforcement and they were, you know, he was there to massacre them. And you know, to the New York Times credit, you know, within an hour of the Trump top officials saying that, you know, New York Times was saying, you know, actually there’s videos, something completely different.

And so many papers came around that quite quickly, but you had the Trump people clinging to this absolute nonsense version that would whitewash the federal agents who killed Preddy. You. And it’s like, okay, if you’re going to lie so brazenly, why should we trust you on anything? That’s right. That’s right. Exactly. Yeah, it is brazen. It is arrogant. It’s an insult to our intelligence, isn’t it? As my. Well, it is, except for people on Twitter. Yeah. Because a lot of them intelligence, because they’re just, you know, it was, it was like, you know, but, you know, but Stephen Miller said this and, you know, it was like it was handed down from Mount Sinai.

Yeah. And it’s like, well, no, actually, you Know, it’s, that’s, that’s, that’s not what, that’s not what happened. So you’re calling them liars. Well, you know, use your word. Yeah, that’s right. You got a better word than the liar. They were grossly mistaken. Yeah, but so, so the, an interesting thing with this was that there, there were a lot of people in the Justice Department who were very unhappy how it went down at Ruby Ridge. And there was an internal investigation that came out with a 500 page report. The government kept that secret. In early 2000, early 1995, FBI Chief Louis Free does a press conference and announces, basically whitewashes all the FBI policymakers and the snipers for the killing of Vicki Weaver and everything else that happened in that case.

So a couple days later, I did a piece for the Wall Street Journal called no Accountability at the FBI. A couple weeks later, Lewis Free attacked me in the article. And in response he wrote to the Wall Street Journal. And so, you know, it was funny. There was a friend of mine from Argentina who had done some work with, with. And on the day that the Lewis Free letter condemning me came out in the Wall Street Journal, he calls it and says, well, I just wanted to say goodbye because, you know, he’s from Argentina. He figures, you know, I’m not going to be around very long.

And, and I said, oh, you know what? I can’t imagine the federal officials ever doing anything improper like that. That. So, but we’re starting to approach that point perhaps. I don’t know. There you go. But so, so, so I kept digging and I eventually got the, a copy of that 500 page confidential report. And I, I wrote about that for the Wall Street Journal and I also wrote about the case for Playboy and American Spectator and I think my stories. Let me interrupt you a second. How did you get that 500 page report? I mean, was that, did they give that up with a FOIA request? No, no, no, they, they, they, they did not give it up.

I was gonna say I wouldn’t think they would. Yeah, no, it was, look, it was not given up. Okay. Okay. You found it through some alternative sources. Well, I came into possession. Okay, there we go. How about that? That’s the way you put it. Yeah, like that. So, but no, it was Pentagon paper style. Yeah. And, and, and having that report, it just completely destroyed the entire storyline the feds had created going back two years or more earlier. And it, it made a mockery of Lewis Free’s claims and they finally suspended some officials at FBI and the.

In the top, the, the, the top official of the FBI Violent crimes and major offender sections and pled guilty, was sent to prison for destroying evidence on the Ruby Ridge case. Oh, I, I didn’t know that. I didn’t think. There’s some details I didn’t know. That’s good. I’m glad somebody went to jail. Yeah. It may have been the evidence that he destroyed would have showed that Lon Horuchi intentionally killed Vicki Weaver. Or maybe it didn’t show that. We don’t know because it was destroyed and the COVID up was successful. But. And they gave him a medal, didn’t they, on Horuchi? I don’t know.

But, but there was a story which I did. Recommendation or whatever. Yeah, maybe. I’m not sure. But. But what the marshal service did is wait until, you know, three and a half years after the, the marshals there killed Sammy Weaver and then gave their highest valor accommodation to the marshals who had been at Ruby ridge in early 1996. And I wrote a Wall Street Journal story about that. There was a lot of pushback among some of their editors, but that’s a different story. But no, it was, it was brazen that they were, it was, was it Wyatt Earp who was a U.

S. Marshal, Someone like that? I mean, he was a movie consultant. Right. I mean, I’m not, I’m. It. It’d be kind of rude to stop the interview and do an Internet search and Google search. So. But no, but, so it was utterly brazen. But. And it’s just, it’s just interesting to see how many lies. I mean, lying and killing goes together like ham and eggs. Yeah. Oh, yeah. And you have that with the federal agencies like you have it with the mafia. Yeah, well, certainly if somebody’s going to kill somebody, as serious as that crime is, they’re going to lie about it.

And so that’s what we see when the government does it. You know, it’s kind of interesting. We talk about the situation in Venezuela. One of the things that I’ve said is that, you know, Madison said the weapons of defense abroad always become instruments of tyranny at home. And I think that applies to their attitudes towards killing people, their attitudes towards war, whether it’s foreign or domestic. I think once they have crossed that Rubicon in their mind like they did with Venezuela, it’s just a matter of time before they start doing it domestically as well. And I think it’s kind of amazing too, when you look at border patrol and immigration control and all the rest of the Stuff.

They’re so focused on their political border, but they don’t think there’s any boundaries whatsoever in law for what they do. So these are people who say, yeah, we gotta have borders and so forth, but there’s no boundaries for us. I mean, Trump has even said that, you know, he was asked that question. He had no problem about saying, well, no, I don’t think there’s any restrictions that I have, any rules, any international rules or laws that I need. I’m constrained by my morality. Oh, that was so comforting. It was just. I mean, there’s. There are so many things which Trump says which are just, you know.

Yeah, that was the golden moment. You know, that’s kind of like Nixon saying, well, when the President does it, it’s not illegal. You know, it’s. Yeah, but it’s going back to those Border Patrol agents and the ICE folks. I mean, it’s almost as if we. That those federal agents need to have absolute power in order to preserve the American way of life. Life, yeah, yeah. Except that the American way of life and federal absolute power, it did not used to go together, so. That’s Right. Well, we just had that a week or two ago. We had some Israeli billionaire named Slomo and he said, we’re going to have to destroy the First Amendment to preserve it.

Right. So we got to destroy the rule of law in order to have America. We got to destroy the Constitution and everything else. Right. That’s the logic behind what these people are telling us. Yeah. I mean, and some of the Trump actions on freedom of speech have been appalling, so. Yeah, yeah, same with a lot of the other things they’ve done. So. But it’s just part of what’s fascinating to me on going back to the parallels of Ruby Ridge and the killing on Saturday. What were the rules of engagement for the DHS agents? There were. There was.

There was a video I saw on online. Bovino was talking to the agents, giving them a pep talk, and he was telling him, if anybody touches you, then, you know, take them down, arrest them, you know, just, you know, do maximum penalties for him. And this is the same attitude. Christy Gnome said something similar that, that if. If some. If somebody. If some protester merely touches you, boom, that’s assault, so on and so forth. Well, you’ve seen the videos of these. A lot of the federal agents being super aggressive with people. Yeah. Bashing them, assaulting them, spraying their face for no reason with a pepper spra.

I mean, this is such an absolute disparity in standards of Conduct. You know, how are people supposed to be free when federal agents have the right to beat them? That’s right. I remember years ago there was a protest at Berkeley. I don’t even remember what it was for. And you had all these people that were, you know, sitting cross legged on the ground and you had this fat cop go along with pepper spray right in front of their faces, just spraying them. And, and that outraged everybody and rightfully so. It’s like, what are you doing that for? And yet, you know, we have the same situation happening now with these ICE agents.

There’s that one picture where they had this person pinned to the ground. The guy puts the spray can right in his face or her face and sprays them with that. There was another one after the shooting of Renee Goode. I’ve played that multiple times. Video. I’ve played multiple times on the show where you got this guy going around kicking. They put, they chalked up the sidewalk with her name and things like that and then put some candles there. And you probably saw that he goes on kicking the candles over. The guy says, what are you doing? What are you doing? Do you know? And the guy gets right up in his face and gets like about an inch from actually hitting him with his body, says get back, get back, get back.

And keeps pushing him back. Just thuggish schoolyard behavior. Just beyond belief. Trying to goad the guy into touching him so he can go off on this guy, he and all the other ones around there. It’s going to be a gang bang if he just lays a finger on this guy and he’s doing everything he can to provoke that. And we’ve seen them coming up to people knocking phones out of their hands because somehow it’s now a rule that if you are photographing the police, which you have a right to do. Supreme Court has said that over and over.

I believe it’s the Supreme Court. There’s been multiple courts. I don’t know if it got up to the Supreme Court or not. But you have a right to film the police. We all know that that should be there whether the law says that or not. But they come up to people and threaten them, threaten to put them in a database, knock the phone out of their hands and all the rest of this stuff. Yep. The Trump DHS has been very explicit that there is no right to videotape federal agents in public. To videotape them even when they’re wearing masks.

Yes. To dox them. And, and, and that, and that that is considered to be a crime. And the federal agents are entitled to use force to shut that down. And as you mentioned, there have been a Supreme Court has not made this explicit, but there have been a number of federal appeals court rulings that said, look, you know, people have got a right to videotape the police in public. I mean there’s, there’s a certain point where the videotape could become too aggressive or too interfering. But I mean there are, you know, there’s lots of the Trump supporters who would like to have a five mile zone of no cameras.

Yeah, I guess. Are they going to go around, Jim, and are they going to arrest Flock and Amazon for the ring cameras and stuff? Because we got cameras everywhere in our society now, whether you like it or not. And most of us aren’t wearing masks when that’s happening as well. Well, and it, it’s just, it, it’s, it’s, it’s interesting how you have, you’ve got two sides here. One, you’ve got total secrecy for the feds, they’ve got their face masks. Nobody’s got no agents, got a name and people got no right to know the name of the agents that, that killed somebody at the, on the flip side, you’ve got total surveillance.

You got these, these agents going around and sticking cameras in people’s faces and saying that, that, that they’re a face and name will be in a database now. Yeah. So the terrorists or whatever, protests or database, somebody does that to me, I tell them spell my name right. Let me give it to you just in case. Yeah, I mean it’s, it’s kind of late for me to worry about being in those databases. That’s right. You know, their society, I guess, Jim, we could look at it. They’re their model for society. Society is a one way mirror.

Right. You know where they are on the opposite side of the mirror. You know, you look at it and you don’t see them at all. You only see yourself that’s there as they’re putting you in the databases that are there. But you’re not allowed to see anything. They have. Yeah. And it’s important to keep in mind Donald Trump has often said he’s going to make America great again, but he never says he’s going to make America free again. That’s right. Or make America constitutional. And Trump’s idea of American greatness seems to be focused on the presidential power.

Yes, yes. Yeah. He’s going to make all power. He’s going to be, he’s going to make America a monarchy again. Well, and and what’s appalling to me is you’ve got so many conservatives who are cheerleading for that. Yeah. I’m just thinking, are you that historically illiterate? Exactly. But to ask that question is to answer it. So. Yeah. What are you trying to conserve at this point? You know, we’ve had the terms neocon. We need to come up with something for the Trump cons or something like that, which says that they don’t adhere to any principles of individual liberty or economic liberty or the rule of law or whatever.

That’s a Trump con. We’re just here for loyalty to Trump because that gets us jobs, it gets us money. That is the highest freedom. Yeah, that’s right. That is the highest freedom. Having the opportunity to obey Donald Trump’s orders. And it’s like. And it’s unfortunate because Trump, Trump has some good ideas, he’s got some good policies. I had a story in New York Post last Sunday on Trump’s talk about banning the red light cameras and the speed cameras in Washington, D.C. i mean, those things are an absolute menace. They caused so many accidents, they’ve killed people.

So I didn’t see that he said that. I would agree with that, but I don’t think that he’ll do it. Trump had not said that. But if someone in his transportation department and ban those cameras. And it’s, it’s a great example of how, how the government can be a scoundrel. Because what happens is you have those red light cameras put in and in order to maximize revenue, what they do is shorten the yellow light. Yeah. Oh, yeah, absolutely. And then cause a lot of accidents and fatalities. So. Yeah, I agree. Yeah. I was surprised because thought, wait a minute, does Trump ever even drive a car? You know, this is one of the things when you see Scott Benson.

No, no, I mean, and this is so my chauffeur has complained about this. You know, this is a fascinating angle on it, too, because I assume that Trump has had bodyguards going back for the last 30 or 40 years. Oh, yeah, sure. And his absolute contempt for Second Amendment rights. Yes. Of anybody going to a protest is supposed to disarm and put themselves at the mercy of the Fed. I mean, this is such. And you can see that with that other elitist billionaire, Scott Besant, who gets a free pass for working for Soros from the MAGA people for some reason.

And when he’s saying, you know, I can’t imagine anybody taking a gun to a protest or whatever. And it’s like he says, I’ve been at Protest. I didn’t take guns. I thought I said to my wife, I said, they were probably protesting Besant. That’s a good point. That’s a good point. It was probably occupied Wall street or something. Yeah. I mean, I’ve had the experience of being a protest where there were guns and protests where the guns were banned, and it’s like, you know, it’s life. It’s life. I mean, guns are part of the American way of life, and it’s also a symbol of American freedom, so.

That’s right. Yeah. I’ve said this multiple times on air since he said that. I said the safest protest I was at was a protest at the Alamo where they were trying to get the carry laws changed in Texas, and you had hundreds of people with rifles slung over their shoulders and police left everybody alone. It’s a great deterrent to violence, you know. Well, this is it. I mean, the. It was fascinating to see the absolute panic by the federal agents as soon as someone says, gun, gun, gun. Oh, we got to shoot him 10 times. Yeah.

I mean, that was an absolute disgrace. Yeah. They were beating the hell out of this guy who they knocked to the ground unjustifiably, and then they panicked and killed him. And it’s like, how in the hell anybody can uphold that kind of behavior or see it as a model or say, yeah, but he was a bad guy because he voted for Tim Waltz. You know, whatever. I don’t care. That’s right. And I don’t care about what happened, you know, in that video from the BBC that was released on Wednesday, went viral on. On Wednesday. That’s not relevant to this particular case.

First of all, he said, look, you can see the gun is stuck in the back of his waistband there. In his back. It’s like. Yeah. And he didn’t pull it out. Right. So what’s the deal? They didn’t kill him either, you know, so if they could deal with that. Yeah. It’s totally appalling to see Trump talking as if anyone. Anybody with a gun should be presumed guilty, especially if they’ve got a second magazine. And how many bullets do the cops carry, you know? Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah. Well, I was at the. I was at the Bundy Ranch standoff there on the ground.

Oh, that was a great one. Yeah, it was. That was a big win. Because what was good about that? It wasn’t just a protest. They had a specific thing that they wanted. They said, we want the cows back, you know, so that you stole from us. And so it was Very interesting. But one of the things that came up in the aftermath of that, when they came after several people and sent some of them to jail, they had a picture of a guy who was up above on the road. Yeah. Trying to present him as a sniper.

And he was down, this is one of the protesters side, and he was down behind this concrete barrier there, you know, road barrier. And so was a woman behind him. And so in the court case, I said, so why is the defense attorney. They were trying to make this guy out to be the aggressor and the only threat that was there. And the defense attorney says, so why were you bending down and said, sorry, you can’t ask that question? You know, obviously he’s hiding behind the concrete barrier because they were threatening to shoot us. Right. And they said, you can’t ask that question.

Well, that’s a case I wrote about for USA Today and it’s fascinating. A crux of that case and part of the reason there were armed people there was the Bundy’s feared the FBI put snipers around their house to kill them. Yes. Oh, they did at Ruby Ridge. Yeah, they did. There was actually some of the guys there cleaned out a sniper’s nest one night there. Oh, that’s interesting. Yeah. Okay, okay. I wasn’t aware of that, but I know the, there was a federal judge, her first name was Gloria, Hispanic lady. But so the, so the feds, I think in the retrial of maybe the Bundys themselves, the feds finally admitted that yes, they did have snipers around the land or the home of the Bundys.

And so there was a real threat. Whereas what the, what the Obama people had done was try to portray them and then the Trump people as well in the first term is to portray those protesters as just kind of complete liars, untrustworthy troublemakers, because they were saying there were FBI snipers around their house. And of course that’s nonsense. But when they, when it finally came out, the federal judge was so furious, I think she just threw the entire case out of court. That’s right. They would have hung all of them. I mean, you know, if there had been.

There was a BLM agent who became a whistleblower. Oh, he was great. He was great. Yes. If it hadn’t been for him, that judge would have railroaded it. Because they did already send several people to prison for long prison sentences. And I didn’t follow up on that to see if they got a pardon with it or not. But basically with the whistleblower’s information, she realized that they’d been lying to her, and that got her angry. And so she acquitted them with prejudice or whatever so they couldn’t come after them again. But she had been really rough in terms of shutting down.

Obvious questions like that, why is this person hiding, crouched down behind a concrete barrier like that, and other people who didn’t have guns were doing the same thing. And it was simply. The answer is because I was there, heard them yelling, get back. Disperse, or we’re going to shoot. You know, and they had their guns pointed at us. Wow. Yeah. Wow. Well, it’s just good that. It’s good. That didn’t make you lose faith in the system. I didn’t have any faith in the system to start with. So, yeah, I didn’t lose any more faith in the system.

No, I don’t have any faith in the system at all. It’s a. That’s great. Well, tell us what you’re up to. And I see a book there in the back. Last Rights. Is that a recent publication that you have? That’s the most recent book I’ve got, Last Rights. It’s a update of all the different government crimes and abuses I did loss rights over 30 years ago. And Last Rights is how things have gotten a lot worse since 1994 when the loss rights came out. We’re scraping the bottom of the barrel now at this point, aren’t we? It’s.

Well, well, there’s a lot of good examples to write about. About, but I don’t know how much good it does. But. So I’m, I’m, I’ve got the books, I’ve got. I write for various think tanks, mazes, Libertarian Institute, Future Freedom Foundation, I do Suffer New York Post, I Do Suffer for some magazines. I’ve done some stuff recently for a reason. So, you know, here and there, just, just trying to hustle and keep positive cash flow. And again, when you look at somebody who. I’ve never seen more open contempt for the First Amendment than Donald Trump, I think he’s surpassed Richard Nixon on this.

The $10 billion lawsuit that he’s got against Wall Street Journal that you’ve written for. Yeah. I mean, Trump in his lawsuits is like $10 billion. Because you said I sent a birthday a card. Yeah, here’s the freaking card. Okay. Well, yeah, but, you know, but I’m still suing you. It’s like, I mean, there’s. This is called slap suits. What’s the. It’s an acronym. Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, I think is how the acronym goes. But Trump has done that so much. Oh, yeah. And as some. I mean. Okay. I mean, one of the things was most astounding is that I think Trump was suing 60 Minutes because of how they edited an interview with Kamala Harris.

I know, I know. And. And you had, you had the White House press secretary threatening a massive lawsuit if. Was it cbs did any editing of Trump’s, Trump’s interview, or with them recently? It’s kind of like. So editing is now crime or what? Yeah, don’t do any editing. You know, everybody has to do editing. I mean, the. You got a time slot. You got to fit this into. So. Yeah. I mean, if, if Trump was smarter, he would realize he needs an editor as much as anybody, because. Good Lord, you know, going on for two hours.

It’s like he’s inspired by Fidel Castro. That’s absolutely right. Yeah. So you got your ticket. Yeah. Yet for the Melania premiere that’s going to be today. If you buy a ticket, you can have a private screening because you’ll be the only person in the theater. Well, this is going to be interesting. I mean, I hope that there’s not a war to distract how the movie does badly. Well, it’s kind of interesting. You know, we’re talking about the lawsuits about. Don’t talk about me and Jeffrey Epstein, things like that, because they threatened a lot of people, Melania did.

With lawsuits as well as Donald Trump. And I think it’s going to be kind of interesting what happens with Michael Wolf, because they had threats of lawsuits for people who were repeating what Michael Wolff had said essentially about Jeffrey Epstein. And I thought, well, why don’t they sue him? He’s the one who is the source of this information. So they threatened him with that, and he said, okay, that’s it. I’m going to sue you. So he’s kind of kicked that off. It’ll be interesting to see. See how that develops. I think we’ll get more information out of that than we will out of any of the Epstein documents that are sitting on Pam Bondi’s desk, purportedly.

Well, it’s just, it’s, it’s so brazen that the Trump folks have got total contempt for disclosure. Contempt for federal law. Yeah. Contempt for the president’s own promises and the top law enforcement officials promising. And it’s like, okay, it, it’s almost as if they have decided that they don’t need any credibility with most Americans and almost all the media. That’s right. Because they’re so powerful or they’re so wonderful. Or that they can get away with anything. So it’s. That’s Nixon, like, in a way, as you said earlier. Yeah, yeah, it is. Absolutely. Well, you kind of got his start with Roger Stone, who’s got a tattoo of Nixon on his back.

That’s one of the things I thought was me. I worked there at Infowars for a while and, you know, Roger, I just got that tattoo of Richard Nixon. How does that square with the idea of being libertarian? I never could figure that one out, so. Well, yeah, I mean, it’s. I will not ask you any questions about a former employer in his position on the shooting. Oh, yeah, exactly. Alex Jones. It’s been disgraceful. I tweeted about that. I got a lot of people angry at me because of what I said. I said, I can’t believe I ever worked for this guy.

But. But he completely flipped on the police state. I mean, he did documentary after documentary about the police state. Yeah. Frizzy planet. Now he is all sharing it, you know, as well as foreign wars. I mean, he’s just, you know, money talks, I guess, and we can kind of assume who’s paying him, you know. Wow. It’s truly. It’s amazing. Well, it might pay off his next libel lawsuit, losing. Yeah, that’s right. That’s right. Well, Jim is great talking to you as always. And again, the. The book is Last Rites. That’s your most recent one. And people can get that anywhere books are sold, I’m sure.

And they can find your website, which will have, I guess, links to any of the articles. Since you write for so many different outlets. They can go to Jimbovard.com and find your op ed pieces there in your articles. That’s the best place for them to find you. Right. Yeah. Hey, thanks so much for having me on. Thanks for your kind words and. And thanks for keeping up the fight. Well, thank you. And thank you for all the work and the research that you have turned up. Done some very valuable research with that. Thank you, Jim. Appreciate it.

Have a good day. Well, that’s it for today’s broadcast. This is my grandson here and we’re going to all try to stay warm. He’s got his special penguin suit here. I want to thank everybody who has supported us this month. We’re at about 75%, but we’re going to go by this afternoon for Friday and check the. The P.O. box again. And we will update the gas gauge to let you know where we wound up. But. Hi, Karen. I see you, but thank you so much. For joining us. Have a great weekend. And again, be careful with all the ice.

Goodbye. 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 even 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@thedavidknightshow.com thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can’t support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. Thedavidkshow.com. Sam.
[tr:tra].

See more of The David Knight Show on their Public Channel and the MPN The David Knight Show channel.