I'm a strong proponent
of the Second Amendment. Uh-huh. I believe the right to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's the one
right that's listed in the Constitution
that uses that very specific affirmative language. - You know, shall not be infringed.
- Oh, it's also the one right that uses the phrase "well-regulated." Correct. When it's talking about
the militia and the state. By the way, just for clarity's sake-- Yeah. --I'm not against the
Second Amendment. I'm not against-- I don't
want to ban guns. But you're saying more
guns makes us more safe. Yes. So, when? We got 400 million
guns in the country. We had an increase,
and gun deaths went up. So when exactly does this
curve hit that takes it down? Would a billion guns do it? Let's just run those numbers. You know, 400 million, 50,000. Uh-huh. You're talking about a--
less than a fraction of not even a percent
of 100th of a percent. But it goes up, not down. So your argument is backwards. But if you want-- okay, so-- so let's--
let's come up with a solution, okay. So one of the issues,
a contributing factor, again, I-- I believe it's the
individual that is the problem. So your solution to that
is give them more guns. So I'm saying that because
people are the problem, we need to look at the problems
that those few people are facing - and how do we address it versus--
- But you've removed the ability for the state to do that. No. Because you-- Because you're-- If you don't have background checks-- Mm-hmm. --and you don't have
registration and permitting, how do you know who has a
problem in terms of the people who you're giving a gun to? Do you want to talk about
the background checks first or do you want to talk
about solutions first? I want to talk about,
what you're doing is you're bringing chaos to order. That's your subjective opinion
that it's bringing chaos to order. It's not my subjective opinion. - We have 50,000 gun related deaths.
- It is. That's not a subjective opinion. Okay, so-- That's dead people. Let me-- Let me
back up for a second. In every other place in your
life, you want to bring order. But guns are the outlier for you. So let's start with immigration. You want registration, maybe
a wall, maybe not a wall. Why do you want that? Well, one of the reasons is
because of the fentanyl crisis. - Right. You--
- I mean, okay, but-- And you don't know
when it's coming across. So what do you do-- But the fentanyl crisis is twice
what the gun death crisis is. Okay, so until the gun crisis
gets to the fentanyl level-- Not until it. you don't want to bring order. No, not until it. But-- But do you see my point. --if we're going to talk about
protecting lives, that's a - larger issue in America than guns is.
- Uh-huh. Yes. If we're talking about individual lives-- Yes. --of ways that they can be
protected, loss of life in America, there's loss of life through fentanyl,
there's loss of life through obesity. - The obesity crisis in America,
- Mm-hmm. costs six times the number of lives - as guns and so--
- Right, and you're the guy saying, you know what
would help this, "ice cream." No. So you know what would
help the problem that we're facing with firearms. What? The fatherlessness crisis
that we have in America. If you look at the statistics-- Right. Yeah, they're
dying from gun deaths. - 80 percent of school shoters
- Yeah. Uh-huh. either came from a broken
or fatherless home. Uh-huh. So you would say no guns
for fatherless homes. - No, that's not what I would say.
- Oh. I would say that fathers
need to be more engaged. - Great. So let's-- let's put more--
- Crime with a firearm, if - let's put more resources into areas
- they don't have a father in the home. that are poverty stricken. All for it. And into fatherlessness. And
that's something that we're doing-- But why with guns are
you against bringing order? I'm not against bringing order. You are. You're also making it less
safe for cops and for people. When the police go to a domestic call, it's the most dangerous
call they can go on. Mm-hmm. In your world, if they
knew that there were firearms in the house,
that's a safer call. Is that what you're saying? - No because police--
- Because why? because police treat every
situation as a potential-- But more guns makes us safer. So why don't-- when the police
go to a house filled with guns, why don't they breathe a sigh of
relief knowing that this Second Amendment that shall not be
infringed is being exercised so fruitfully in this home? Are you familiar with the 39-year-old
woman in New Jersey? - I'm familiar with a ton of anecdotes.
- That-- That-- Yeah. - I'm asking you a simple question.
- This is not an anecdote, Jon. - When the police go to a house--
- This actually happened. She had a restraining
order on her ex-boyfriend. I can run through-- I know. --hundreds and hundreds
of examples of women killed by their domestic partners by guns that were not taken away through
the lessening of red flag laws. - You're pivoting to anecdotes.
- But the knives-- No, this is not anecdotes. What the police say, if
we had gun registration, if we were able to track
purchases, if we are-- they have a technology that
every bullet would be stamped with an individual, like a fingerprint, if we had an ATF
that wasn't defunded, we would be able to enforce
gun laws more effectively, and we would be able to solve
gun crimes more effectively. You're against all of that. Because the person is the threat,
not the firearm, not the knife. - I get it. Great.
- The-- The person, the individual - Great.
- is the one who is the concern here. But you don't want anything
that could help law enforcement or society determine whether or not a person is a good guy with a
gun or a bad guy with a gun. - Most even law enforcement--
- The registry would allow you to have much more
effective background checks. Mm-hmm. So I don't understand why you won't
just admit that you are making it harder for police to manage the
streets by allowing all of these guns to go out without permits, without
checks, and without background stuff. Why is that hard-- why can't
you just stand by that? Because that's not what I'm doing. I'm defending the individual's
right to keep and bear arms. That's a different argument. Okay, but-- You may do-- here-- here's--
here's what I'm saying. Mm-hmm. You want to say I'm a Second Amendment purist, and I'm maing it safer. You're not.
You're making it more chaotic. And that's not a matter of
opinion. That's the truth. That is a matter of opinion, Jon. But why take away their tools? Because certain of their
tools that they're using would be infringements
upon the people's right to keep and bear arms upon
their constitutional rights, upon - due process and upon other things.
- So you're saying that registering is an infringement. Yes. Okay. Is voting a right? It's a right for citizens, yes. Do you have to do anything to do it? Yes. What do you have to do? It depends on the state. What do you have to do? Sometimes you have to-- you
have to be at least 18 years old. What do you have to do? And in some places, you have
to have a government issued ID. What do you have
to-- you have to-- You have to be on the voter rolls. Register. You have to register. Mm-hmm. So you have to register to a
right. Is that an infringement? Does the right to voting
say shall not be infringed? Oh, so this is just a
semantic argument now. No, it's not. You believe voting rights can be infringed because it doesn't say specifically shall not be infringed. Is it an infringement
upon a 17-year-old's right to vote since they
don't have that right to vote? No. Oh, it's not infringement on them? - No. Absolutely not.
- Why not? You're the-- because you're the
one making the argument, not me. I'm saying even rights
have responsibilities and that within those responsibilities-- Responsibilities, yes. --are responsibilities and order.
Otherwise, it's chaotic. I'll go you one further. You want to ban drag show
readings to children. - To minors yes.
- Why? Why? - Why? Why?
- What are you protecting? Why can we prohibit children
from voting, those under 18 - from voting? But also that.
- Why are you banning-- Is-- Is that free speech? Are you infringing on that
performer's free speech? They can continue to
exercise their free speech, just not in front of a child. Why? Because the government does
have a responsibility to protect-- I'm sorry? The government does have
a responsibility in certain - instances to protect children.
- What's the leading cause of death amongst children in this country?
And I'm going to give you a hint, it's not drag show
readings to children. Correct, yes. So what is it? I'm presuming you're
going to say it's firearms. No, I'm not going to say
it like it's an opinion. That's what it is. It's firearms. More than cancer, more
than car accidents. And what you're telling me is, you
don't mind infringing free speech to protect children from this
amorphous thing that you think of. But when it comes to
children that have died, you don't give a flying ****
to stop that because that shall not be infringed. That is hypocrisy at its highest order.
