0024 Sir Gene Speaks

Well, we knew it was coming. I think it was pretty inevitable that at some point during the Biden administration, there would be some crazy dude that flips a switch to the wrong place in this head has access to guns and decides to go use them on innocent people. So this has happened on a semi a regular basis, certainly during democratic presidents that we've had. And unfortunately every time it is used as an excuse to push through some type of anti-gun legislation. The natural knee jerk response for liberal politicians or liberals in general, I would say is that, see, this is what happens when people have access to tools, they start using those tools. Somebody gets hurt. It's clearly the tool's fault and the tool needs to be banned. If they took the exact same attitude or drug use. incidentally, I am opposed to increases in any kind of drug laws, but let's just use drugs as an example, if the liberals whereas opposed to the use of drugs as they are to the use of guns, the us would be a completely dry country. there would be essentially full regulation with a background checks to be able to obtain alcohol to tobacco and anything beyond tobacco would clearly be illegal because. Tobaccos would be grandfathered in and alcohol would be grandfathered in, but all other drugs would be banned. Now you can say guns are nothing like drugs. Well, I would disagree with you because they're both sort of tools. They're both things that exist are innocuous in their own. Right? What it requires is somebody to make a conscious choice. May be, you could say subconscious, but generally I would argue for a conscious choice to abuse those things in a way that results in harm to others. So if someone decides to do LSD to do acid and they're going to do this in their own house and they're going to do it by themselves. They're in a, let's say a happy frame of mind. And they do LSD. We can have a separate conversation about what the negative results of doing that, or maybe even positive results of doing that are after the fact. But during that time they may end up harming themselves, but they're extremely unlikely to harm anybody else now, if the same person decides that it would be fun to do LSD while they're on a business trip and they've rented a rental car and they decide to do LSD and then proceed to get in their car and drive in a city environment, let's say Las Vegas, the odds of them doing harm to other people are greatly increased that same person without the drugs, much less odds of doing harm. Same argument as being used for guns person has a gun for personal protection. It's in their house. Their ability to do harm with that gun is fairly slim. Their ability to do harm with that gun. If somebody enters their house and they get scared and they decide to pull their gun out and aim it at the thing that's scaring them is pretty high, but generally that would be a justified use of the weapon. I don't know if there's such a thing as a justified use of a drug, but I still think it's a fairly good analogy in that personal use of drugs that don't harm other people much like personal use of guns that don't harm other people should be I hate to use the word aloud because it's really not up to the government to ban these things. They are inherently. Rights of individuals, whether it's a right to use a substance that, maybe changes the way that you think temporarily. And by the way, that substance is simply alcohol guys, you don't have to get super creative here because alcohol is technically a poison. It kills cells. And that's why we use it as an antiseptic to kill bacteria, because it is a poison. It tends to kill things that are alive. And if you drink too much alcohol, you will end up being dead as well. But if you drink a little bit of alcohol and that poison, in fact just starts to act. There's a certain euphoria that people feel because if they didn't feel anything good after consuming alcohol, why the hell would you ever drink? I have certainly consumed plenty of alcohol over the years. I've noticed that my interest in consuming alcohol has gone down greatly in the last three, four years, as I've gotten older, as I've gotten less interested in changing the way that I feel alcohol is just become a purely social thing and where I would have maybe had three or four drinks when I was out at a restaurant previously. I might order you to have one glass of wine and that'll be it. if I don't drink for another three to four months after that, that would be very typical. It would not be a strange occurrence today when I was in my twenties, if I didn't drink for a whole week, that would be an unusual occurrence. Certainly I was in bars and hanging out with friends a lot more than I'm doing now. I guess maybe the antidote to alcohol is being antisocial. Maybe that's it, or just getting older, which certainly I think changes people's opinions, but let's get back to our analogy because I think this whole episode is getting into being about guns. So if you were hoping for a different topic, I apologize because I think we're going to take up the entire time slot with conversations about guns and politics related to guns. So I am old enough to I've been around during the Clinton gun ban, the assault weapons ban that was enacted. Having lived through that and having purchased guns immediately before the deadlines and paid exorbitant prices for those guns, because, Oh my God, they're not going to be available anymore, but you could be grandfathered in. So you better get your stuff Pronto. So having survived through, through that survive this probably being overly dramatic, having lived through that experience. I certainly remember both the fear that people had in losing access, the helplessness that was felt in seeing something that was truly a, what everybody assumed was a constitutionally protected thing. All of a sudden disappearing. And it really pushed through. The Republican revolution in Congress, at least partly responsible for it as a result of that weapons ban being enacted, and it was a completely asinine ban. And it's essentially the same thing. That's still in place in California. The parts of it that haven't been reversed by judges at least effectively listing a number of guns that looked scary guns that were used in films, guns that typically were black color or similar in shape to the shape of military guns used in the U S military or possibly other militaries. I can't remember cause this was like 30 years ago who compiled the list or any of the details really. But I do remember that they effectively took out the most common type of sporting rifle. the two most common types, really, I would say, which would be the the civilian version of the AK 47 that is imported into this country which is a fairly cheap gun with, okay. Accuracy. It's not horrible. As some people would think, but it's not quite up to the spec of the AR 15 and the AR 15 is the civilian version of the M 16. The civilian versions of both of these guns look very similar to the military versions of these guns. The only real difference being an inability to shoot in fully automatic mode. I'm going to assume most people listening to this know the difference between semiauto and Otto semiauto essentially means that when you pull the trigger it will shoot once. And then cycled the bolt to load the next cartridge and then stop. And then you have to release the trigger and then press the trigger or squeeze the trigger again for that process to be repeated and a fully automatic configuration AK 47 or the fully automatic M 16, which you can flip a switch to go between select fire fully automatic, or a single fire modes. That same process takes place. You squeeze the trigger. The hammer falls on the primer. The bullet is fired. The slide then automatically goes back, kicks out the empty cartridge loads, the next cartridge, and then automatically drops the hammer again to fire that round. And it just keeps repeating the process in an automated fashion. Until the magazine is empty or until the trigger is released, whichever happens first. Now, if you have a hundred round magazine, which you can get a drum magazines that are that size then you're probably going to keep going for quite a while, but it's also generally accepted by people that know how to shoot. And that have shopped for a little bit more than just a couple of times. They realize that full auto mode might be fun to try, but it is a complete waste of ammo. You are way less accurate when you're shooting in fully automatic mode. Because the gun itself does become less accurate. Shooting fully automatic Because there's no time for anything to stabilize you've got momentum happening continuously with every shot. And the speed of automatic fire can vary between about 350 rounds on some guns, all the way up to 1200 rounds on some other guns. So it's very fast to unload an entire magazine, but in that mode, most of the ammunition is going to be wasted. So why are we even talking about falafel guns? When most people don't have them? Now you can legally have a fully automatic weapon, but there's a lot of hoops to jump through. There's a fee to be paid and paperwork filled out for the ATF and because of a really stupid law that was enacted in, I think it was 86. If I remember correctly which effectively stopped all new, full automatic weapons from ever being able to be purchased by civilians. So you can still get a fully automatic weapon if you take the time and spend the money to do it. But it will be a very expensive gun from the 1970s or early 1980s, because only guns that are older than that law, which again, I'm not looking at the law site, if I'm wrong, guys just correct me, but I believe it was enacted in 86 and it was the something something firearm safety act is my guests. They usually put these a very benign titles and things that are horrible. So that was definitely a black Mark on Ronald Reagan Springs. And then see, as far as I'm concerned because that's the, it was an anti-gay anti gunner move because the only people that were legally buying these guns in the first place. Were people that were already filling out massive background check paperwork and paying taxes. So the only thing they did is they by limiting the number of these guns to only older weapons, they've just helped the used market essentially on fully automatic weapons. But anyway, so semi-automatic guns were the guns that were banned as part of the Clinton gun ban. And they just happened to look like other guns that could be purchased. Maybe not even purchased, but could be purchased by police or military, certainly in fully automatic modes. I think the biggest reason that they banned these guns was because they look like the types of fully automatic firearms that people see in television shows. And it, it is pretty rare in a TV show or a movie. To see guns that are not fully automatic because they're just a lot less fun. They're less interesting. There was a movie that came out with DeNiro and Pachino many years ago now I think Michael Mann was the director of the movie is called heat, H E a T and heat, in my opinion. And I think a lot of other gun enthusiasts opinions was one of the best realistic representations of a gunfight happening between police and criminals. The the guns ran out of bullets in that movie. It was amazing. It never happens in any other TV shows, so they would shoot until they were empty and then they would have to quickly switch out magazines, which is what happens in real life. Typically the magazine will hold anywhere between 10 rounds and 30 or 40 rounds, depending on the weapon. And again, with the, if you want to get like a drum magazine, they can go quite a bit bigger than that, but you will usually end up running out of ammo in the magazine, and then that's why you have multiple magazines, so you can quickly change them and put in a new one. So that movie had a realistic portrayal, but most movies just show everybody from both the cop side and the criminal side, just running around with fully automatic firearms. And while that is, theoretically possible, criminals don't obey laws anyway. So if they could get their hands on Filotto that they could potentially use it, but they would have to be pretty stupid criminals to be using Filotto because full lotto does not give you an advantage. As I said before, it's actually a disadvantage in accuracy. So if you're a criminal, you're not going to follow the laws anyway. So it doesn't matter. What guns are banned. If you can manage to get your hands on the weapon illegally, then you're going to get your hands on a weapon illegally. incidentally, if you're a repeat criminal, then the only way you can get your hands in the weapon is illegally. Because if you have a felony conviction, guess what? You lose your rights to be able to own a firearm. And that's a permanent loss. That's not like subject to a few years. I think it's also a stupid policy incidentally, because it effectively creates a category of a punishment for a person that has a felony conviction, which is permanent. So normally you would serve out your prison sentence, you leave prison. And then I'm assuming you don't do anything bad. While you're what do they call it on parole? I guess if you're on parole at all, if you don't just serve out the full sentence, then you effectively get your rights back. That's not the case with firearms is once you've got that felony, that's it you no longer have the right to your second amendment. That's a separate conversation that could take up probably a whole episode, more of a philosophical one to discuss, but going back to this band, obviously, Biden is jumping all over right now utilizing a horrible bull and sad occurrence in Colorado for political expedition and political gain. Not surprising because like I said this is happening with politicians every single time that there's a tragedy. The first thing they want to do is utilize that tragedy. To accomplish whatever result they want to achieve and trying to ban these things. So he's pushing for a ban. And the other aspect, that was again, to be expected. We knew at some point in his presidency, this would happen. But if we actually start looking at this massacre, I think it's fair to call it that in Colorado. I think 10 people have died if if the last time I checked the news, it may be more if anybody dies in the hospital. Okay. But the initial reporting that I read on the day of the events, when it came out was that police had apprehended, a middle aged white man, and that the middle aged, the white man was responsible for shooting people up in the store. So naturally the social media is filled. With all kinds of blue check marks we're obviously 99.9% liberals saying, see, this is what happens with Trumpers. This is what you could expect from all these crazy white people. White people are the biggest plague in the United States. It is the single biggest danger to the United States are white people. These are literally tweets that people were posting I'm generalizing the message, but the messages were exactly right along those lines. It was instantly assumed that this was a white person because the initial reports just said middle-aged and the skin color definitely didn't look dark. So the assumption was it's gotta be a crazy white guy. What else could it be? Because it's always crazy white guys that have the guns that are nuts. Can't trust them. Well, Now we find out who that person was because the name's been released. So check out this crazy middle aged white guy's name. I'm I'll we I'll ISA I know some people like to comment about how, anytime someone has a middle name, it's a little wink, wink, nudge, nudge to conspiracy theorists. Well, this guy doesn't just have one middle name. He's got two middle names. I'm I'll we all ISA and all, I can't remember the exact meaning of all, but I think it's Ahmad of all we have ISA or Ahmad from all we from ISA or Alma whose mother or father is all we or ISA or, and ISA anyway. I'm sure I'm getting the Arabic incorrect here. But the bottom line is it's obviously not a white dude. And guess what? He's also not middle aged. He was I saw it in one of the reports he's in his twenties. So the initial reporting that came in was completely wrong, which didn't stop all the blue check marks from having wrong guesses about the situation. But now that we find out who this guy is, people have started doing searches for him. And guess what else they found? They found his Twitter feed and a very recent post on his Twitter feed. Actually I don't think it was that recent, but recent enough anyway, was during the Trump presidency, having a photo of kids standing next to a fence and who the hell knows what fence that actually is, because we all know how many photos are just used. To represent the the immigrants immigration seekers down on the border. But let's just say that was an actual, so, ISIS facility fence with kids in a photo in it, let's not even worry about debating the accuracy of that. So he's got this photo pace in his Twitter feed with the words Trump's such a Dick. Wow. That doesn't sound like an angry old white man to me. Does it, that's kinda sounds more like an Antifa message than that. It sounds more like an angry youth who doesn't like the, then current president and is labeled to do something. Oh, I don't know. Crazy and erratic, like go kill people. Wow. That's not following the The assumed and hoped for timeline, I'm sure of the left. So doesn't that seem like maybe we had a terrorist attack in Colorado and maybe the terrorists, aren't little old ladies with signs that say manga and love America, but maybe it's a Arab dude who hates America and thereby went in and tried to kill Americans. Boy, the facts are just making it difficult to hold on to a crazy liberal preconceptions here. Aren't they? So we have this message. Apparently there was a, another post that he had that said the Muslims at the Christchurch mosque were not victims of a single shooter. They were the victims of the entire L slammer phobic industry that vilified them. Wow. Okay. So that, that was certainly Christchurch, horrible incident, right? Anytime people get killed, it's bad thing. It doesn't really matter what religion they are, what their background is, what race they are. But clearly this guy is essentially saying, Hey, some random shooter that killed these Muslims. It was the general the Islamophobia, the end, the industry vilified them. So what does that mean? What is the industry that vilifies Muslims? And that's a good question because I'm not sure what that would be. It's not a question I can easily answer because I'm not aware of any industry that vilifies Muslims it would have to be. Gosh, well, he be talking about the U S military industrial complex that builds the drones and the weapons that are utilized to bomb Muslims in the middle East. Maybe. That's the closest that I can think of because otherwise I, and that would be a stretch by the way, but that would be about the closest industry that I can think of. Somebody saying that vilifies Muslims and participate in Islamophobia, but really the industry doesn't care what religion people are. They just want their weapons to be sold and used. If the current volunteers for that activity happened to be Muslims and I'm, I guess volunteer is probably the wrong word. I think the word they actually do use are, is customers. So the customers happen to be the Muslims that live in the middle East for their weapons, but they're not I don't think they ultimately care. If their weapons are used against Christians by China, for example, that would be perfectly okay, too. As long as the Christians, weren't from a country that also buys weapons. So like a Chinese killing Chris chins in Africa. Yeah. That'd be all right. I will not be a problem for them. So yeah, a lot of facts, the, now that they're starting to come out are making this whole story of we need to have weapons bands because of the crazy old white men just seem ridiculous. Doesn't it? Because that is absolutely not what happened in this situation. Now, not to say that there haven't been white people that have been crazy and then utilize guns. Certainly we all remember the gun dealer or whatever he was a dealer of, he was clearly a dealer of something that was in Vegas that was set up in the hotel window. And shooting down into a musical performance that was a few years ago. There was a lot of inconsistencies with the media description of that event as well. But, somehow they're always trying to utilize these events and that's the thing with that event that ended up happening which I think again, okay, so the event before I started talking about how stupid it is, the thing that ended up happening as a result of that Vegas shooter was the banning of bump stocks and bump stocks, which again, sorry guys, if you know what they are, I'm repeating this for people that maybe don't bump stocks were a type of replacement stock and the stock is the piece of the gun that touches your shoulder in the rifle or shotgun, if you're shooting it. And this particular type of stock it's called the bump stock, because there's a mechanism. As part of the stock that allows the finger to go off the trigger and then back on the trigger in an easier, faster fashion. Remember when I described the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons, the difference is, and it's the semi-automatic weapon. When you squeeze the trigger, there's only one repetition of an action that happens, and you have to reset the trigger, which means let go of the trigger and then squeeze it again for that action to be repeated in full automatic weapons. There's some different pieces. The sear actually allows the gun to cycle as long as the trigger is held. So there's nothing that stops that the gun from continuing to shoot. So if you own a semiautomatic weapon and you bought one of these bump stocks, what it would do, there's a few different models they use, but effectively what it would do was put a little piece of the stock next to your finger. And when you squeeze the trigger, the recoil from the gun, because when the bullets flying forward, there's force pushing back, that's just standard Newton laws of physics. So that, that force pushing the gun back would actually end up moving the trigger from your finger, where your finger was held. Then as the weapon returned to its normal position, the trigger was already reset for you. I wouldn't quite call it automatically, but effectively, if you can think of it, the bunk stock either vibrated your fingers so that your finger could move off the trigger and then right back onto the Traeger with every shot. Or if you imagine your finger holding study it vibrated the gun. So the whole gun would move back and then forward again. In which case your finger, which was not moving would touch the trigger again. And another shot would go off. So the idea of a bump stock they've been around forever. Number bumps, socks back 20, 30 years ago. And they're like, they're stupid. They're horrible. Nobody that was a shooting enthusiast ever used. The bump stock. People would buy one just to play with it, try it out, see what it works like, but ultimately they have the same problem that a fully automatic mode on a fully automatic gun has, which is a waste of ammunition because your first round might be more or less accurate. But your second round is absolutely not going to be accurate and the same thing for the next few rounds. And then the fact that it's an ad-on device that uses your finger as part of the mechanism. It's not just Springs and gears inside the gun, the housing they're doing it. It's relying on your finger to still be pressing the trigger. It's just. Increasing the speed with which that's able to happen. It's it's just, it's a stupid waste of money. It's what it is. It's a bad device. So the bottom line is bump. Stocks ended up being banned. Now I think that's a bad thing because there's it's really a part of a gun. Now you could say what's an aftermarket part. Sure. It's an aftermarket. Pardon? But it doesn't have to be got, the manufacturers could have built their guns with these things. It's no different than adding a site to a gun that doesn't come with a site it's no different than adding a second grip to the bottom of a gun to make it more comfortable to hold. It's no different than adding a good sling to the gun, which makes it easier to hold the gun. So the idea of banning the bump sock, I think is silly. It's stupid. But the bump stock itself is also both of those words. It's silly and stupid. It's a novelty. It's really a novelty thing that no serious person would utilize. But of course, the guy in Vegas happened to have utilized the bump stock and therefore it got negative publicity. Everybody that's never shot a gun in their lives was made to feel very scared by the media, by all the blue check marks because, Oh my God, this lets you convert a semi-automatic gun into full automatic. Well, no it doesn't. It totally doesn't it's you could achieve the exact same result. If you got a hype Hitachi vibrator, and you know what I'm talking about, you got one of those things, you strapped it on your wrist and you put it so that the working end of that device touches your finger. And then you put your finger into the trigger of a gun and you turn on the Hitachi magic wand, vibrator, and that would vibrate your finger back and forth, forcing your finger to shoot very quickly multiple times, but each time as a single shot of the trigger, can you do that? Absolutely. Should you do that? No, it's a stupid thing. It would be as stupid as it sounds, but technically speaking, if you stick a vibrator on your hand and make sure that the work in bit of it touches your trigger finger. Well, absolutely shoot fast. There's no two ways about it. So maybe that's how you get vibrators band. Huh? So maybe there's a model for somebody that's that thinks vibrators are evil and they need to go off the market. That could be a way to do it by saying they could be. Utilize as a way to shoot really fast and turn semi-automatic guns into Filotto anyway, maybe I shouldn't be giving bad ideas to people because somebody could end up doing that. And then they'll point to this podcast and say yeah, this guy teaches you how to build parts that circumvent guns and turn them full auto. That's absolutely not what I'm doing through, not what I'm doing on the podcast. And you definitely need to make sure you listen all the the disclosures that I put at the very end of the podcast. Everything here is just purely informational and fictional, nothing, Israel. Anyway, getting back to the guns. So stupid idea ended up being banned right now, and this is not banned, but honestly it's about as likely to get band next as anything else is gun manufacturers have figured out, and this initially came out as a aftermarket, but now. Also guns come with them. And once again, I've interrupted my own train of thought. The part that I'm describing, part of that I'm talking about guns are now starting come with is instead of using a stock, which is really the piece of wood or plastic that goes between your shoulder and the working action of the gun. Instead of doing that, manufacturers have started creating what are called wrist braces. And the wrist brace looks quite similar to a stock, but it's a little bit shoulder shorter and it's got some rubber bands on it. The idea of the, what do they call it? The wrist rest it's essentially, instead of putting the stock of the gun, the rifle up against your shoulder, that you're just strapping the gun to your forearm. So it's not really to your wrist, but because your wrist is like right behind where the trigger is, it's strapping a little shorty version of a stock with these rubber bands. And they're heavy duty rubber bands. They're not like rubber band looking rubber bands, but that's the best way to describe them. They w they're elastic bands, I guess that's the way to describe you're strapping that to your forearm. And by doing that, you're able to better control the gun than just holding it in your hand. And that's, I think technically that's true. I believe the original concept for these came out for for people that shot guns that were handicapped through certain degree where, you know, using a traditional stock just would not work for them. So it was really an aid device, but it really caught on, and there's a reason that it caught on. And that reason is that if you don't have a stock on the gun, Then that gun is not considered a rifle or shotgun. So if it's not considered a rifle or shotgun, then the minimum barrel length requirement doesn't have to be met because which I, again, I'm going to assume most of you guys already know, but if you don't, there is a minimum barrel length requirement for all rifles and shotguns in the U S I believe it's 16 inches. Maybe it's 18, but I'm pretty sure it's it's 16 inch barrel and a 26 inch minimum length overall. I'm going off memory guys. So if I'm off on those numbers, look it up yourself. Don't take my word for it, but I believe that's what it is. So 60 inch barrel, 26 inches over the issue is that a lot of people that don't use rifles to actually shoot at anything. Accurately, they just like cool looking guns for movies. A lot of these people, they would like a shorter, smaller weapon. By removing the stock from a rifle and then replacing that stock with a wrist rest or, honestly, that's the way you can buy guns these days. Now they don't have to ship with a 16 inch barrel. They can ship with it 14 inch or 12 inch or 10 inch barrel effectively converting a rifle to a pistol, but a still a pistol that has a a wrist rest on it for tighter control than the typical pistol would have with you just holding in your wrist in your hand. So let's take a step back. So hopefully you can imagine what this is or you've seen photos, you know what it is essentially. If you can imagine like an AK 47, but it's been shortened both on the barrel and the stock to a point where it looks like pistol, but it still has that little rest thing, which push comes to shove. And this is why I think they're getting a good band is that if you, instead of wrapping the rubber bands, the around your wrist, if you just ignore that they're there, you can actually use it as a very short stock, which means you're not going to be shooting with your right hand or your trigger hand. Mostly extended. Your trigger hand is going to be with a large bent of your elbow and closer to your body ironically, or maybe not ironically, but notably exactly in the way that you see SWAT teams holding these weapons. In movies, television, and video games, which honestly I think is what's driving most people's behavior. Oh, I played this in the video game. I want to play it in real life. I want an alarm. I want to go out there and wear a black suit and have a gun with a short barrel. Because that's what people are doing with these rest rests things, which have the the ATF has already come out and tried to ban this device. Once there was some backlash enough for them to go into a review mode and say maybe we're not going to ban it right now, but we're going to still look at this issue because they, these devices did come out with a legitimate purpose to allow people with some handicaps to be able to better control weapons that they couldn't otherwise control. They're just being misutilized and it's not something you can really change the shape of and to prevent the missed utilization. I think you're just going to stuck with it now. But here's the other thought, and this goes along with the full auto, the shorter, the barrel, the less accurate the weapon, the slower, the round coming out of the barrel and the louder, the gun. So there's three negatives for having a gun with a 12 inch barrel. so I have a gun with a 16 or 18 or 20 inch barrel. You end up with something that is shooting a rifle, cartridge, even the small cartridge, like a five, five, six, which is what the AR fifteens and M sixteens shoot or a two to three would be the American designation. But you ended up with a gun that uses those rounds, but is louder. She has less power, less energy in the round that it's shooting and the round is moving slower. And it's less accurate. So you're getting rid of accuracy. You're getting rid of power. You're getting rid of the speed of the bullet. And you're increasing the noise, but Hey, your gun looks cool. Just like it does in the video game. Oh my God. Anybody that is a a person that gets, that would be buying these types of guns is probably starting to get a little pissed off at me for calling him out on it. But I'd say just own it. Like, I don't think there's anything wrong with making guns like that. Certainly don't think there's anything wrong with owning guns like that. As long as you are aware that what you're buying is essentially a video game gun that can shoot real ammo, but it is in every possible respect, worse than the full rifle version of that gun. That doesn't look like the video game gun, but performs better. That's just reality. So if there's going to be another gun ban considered, which I suspect there will be. Given that the Senate, the house and the president are all Democrats, they would be crazy not to try and push something through hoping to guide the fingers, crossed that it would get stopped in the Senate, but maybe not. It certainly didn't during the Clinton years. It did result in the huge concern of push back on the following election cycle. But Clinton is president still get reelected. So there you go. But that's because of the Democrats or the Democrats, the Republicans keep running complete losers as candidates. And that's the crazy thing. It's I, okay. Topic for another show. We'll definitely do a show on this. It's just not, it's not a topic that needs to be discussed right now, but let me just say, it's really hard to vote for Republican candidates because out of the last four of them that they run they've all been more negative than positive. Romney, Jesus Christ, that guy should've had a D next to his name for the last 20 years. I have no idea how he's still a part of the Republican party other than the Republican party is basically all rhinos right now. They're Republican in name only which used to mean something these days. It doesn't really mean much because all the Republicans are damn near all, not all. I do like some guys like Ted Cruz is pretty good, but a lot of these Republicans are what we used to call Republican in name only. These are people that are essentially for the same things that Democrats are for, but they wear suits or they wear better quality suits. That's really the only difference there for the same elitist corporate mentality. They're there. They were historically, I guess the here's the historical differences. They were basically Democrats. Who happened to be also socially conservative. So socially conservative Democrats, they were pretty much for all the stupid things that Democrats are for, but they were pro-life instead of pro choice. And therefore that made them Republican. They were Democrats that went to church Democrats that had some religion on them, horrible people, probably the worst of the bunch I am. Okay. Socialists are definitely the worst of the bunch, but other than socialists, I would take a real Democrat over a rhino Republican any day, because at least with a real Democrat, you can argue and speak philosophically. And even you can even compromise with them on certain issues with the rhinos, their starting position is already fully compromised. The only thing that they can then give on to the Democrats. Is the difference between them and Democrat, which is going to be religion and abortion. And I don't give a shit about those things. It's no, it's not an issue that I will base my vote on at all. So consequently, that's what the Republican party has been running. It's been running these very lefty Republicans who have managed to stay in politics, their entire life and John McCain. Another great example of one of those totally a lefty Warhawk in my opinion, bought and paid for by China for his entire life. I think he was absolutely the mentoring candidate. I can't prove that, but I'll just say it. We've had a lot of people on the Republican side with a little R next to their name who were still willing to compromise a way. Things that are literally part of the constitution, part of the second amendment. And it's not just that they're also the Republicans that have gone along with the all the COVID bullshit as well. There's a lot of them out there. so I am a little concerned that Biden may just be able to swing through another stupid ban on guns. So we talked about the types of guns. We talked about the stupidity of their decisions, and this was literally, I think it was a list of about 55 different firearms, mostly from movies. And they generalized to a few things like if a gun has a ban at Miami Mount, which most of the AR fifteens did all the AK 40 sevens did. And it has a grip and it shoots from a magazine with more than 10 rounds. It's like all these things added up. Well, then even if it doesn't look like one of the guns that are on the list specifically by name, then it was still banned. So that's what, that was their sort of generalized ban aside from the specific gun ban. And then there was a set of specific guns that were banned, including a few that I had at the time. Again, they're like not very good weapons. Like I had a Calico, which was a gun made in California that had a w it was a 100 round magazine pistol. So it was more compact than pistols. It had the relatively short barrel length, but it also had a hundred round magazine. Now I bought this gun when I was a 20 year old who played video games. Cause it was cool looking. It was one of the worst shooting, crappiest guns. That I've ever shot. And when I could get rid of it, when I could sell it, somebody illegally I was more than happy to do that because it was just not a good weapon, but it was neat. It was unusual. when I see a video of that gun, which happens on YouTube now, and then I do get a little bit of a nostalgic recollection of having one. And then I remembered how much of a pain it was to load the magazine, how inaccurate it was. It didn't have some good qualities. I can just say it was, everything was bad about it, but it was not a gun you would ever want to own for defense. It was not a gun you would ever go hunting with. It was just a gun you'd take to the range to say, Hey, check this thing out, guys. You ever see anything like this? That's literally the only thing that gun was useful for it. That was one of the guns specifically on the banned list. So there, there was a number of guns. There was also a gun called the street sweeper. Which was on, which is a fully automatic shotgun that was on there. So there was, eh, I guess technically it wasn't fully automatic, I suppose it was a semi-automatic shotgun. Yeah. It was a semi-automatic shotgun that you could shoot, I think 10 rounds really fast from so what, Oh and then I got to mention the magazines, right? They went along with that band. So a standard magazine size is determined by gun manufacturers. So we'll have, I have a magazine capacity, a standard magazine that's designed to fit it. If it's a full frame gun, meaning the gun is bigger than the size of your hand. It's not really meant to be concealed somewhere easily. It's the guns that you see all the cops walking around with. So those are full-sized guns. Typically those guns those hand guns will usually hold. From 16. Let's say if it's a 45, it might hold nine rounds. But so from nine rounds in the low side to 19 rounds, if it's a nine millimeter, that's a full-size gun and it has a full-size magazine potentially up to 19 rounds in the gun. And the size of the magazine is usually determined by manufacturer so that it fits the size of the gun itself. It's not going to stick out of it too far for rifles, do you have a similar thing? So the most common magazines that are created for the AR 15 platform are 30 round magazines. You can get them either with 10 round or 30 round or 45 round or a hundred and a hundred round, or even up to 150 round for the drum magazines for those guns. But they're typically shipped with 30 round magazines. That's considered standard size incidentally for people that use air fifteens for something other than shooting in the range. The second most common use for them is for hunting Vardaman. Having grown up in the Midwest, I can tell you guys usually means a gopher or a Groundhog or a some sort of a pest critter, potentially a Beaver, but what you'll find them in the Midwest is a lot of farmers are invaded by these types of species, whether it's beavers, damming up a stream on their property, or whether it's gophers digging holes underneath the crops. And the biggest problem isn't even necessarily these critters will eat the crops themselves it's that they create problems for the farming machinery. So the golfers start digging holes and you're driving a combine which weighs 60 tons or more that, that combine might have a tire that ends up dropping three, four inches lower as it's going over the gopher holes that the golfer has dug or a puddle of collapses. And the tire ends up going down into dirt that could get stuck, but even if it doesn't get stuck you're dropping the combine head, the mechanism that's actually gathering the harvest and potentially dropping that below the level of the soil, or you're going to. Damage equipment. at the very least you might get some crap in there that you don't want, like rocks coming in and damaging the inside of the combine. So it could be a very costly maneuver. the reason I'm telling you all this is the bottom line is a lot of farmers will actually pay people to kill these gophers and kill the rodents. And other vermin that they consider to be destructive. And it's totally legal. It's totally normal activity. The farmers themselves could do it, but they get tired of trying to do that. So they'll actually usually put a bounty on these things and then you can go on somebody's farm. then you shoot, let's say 10 15 of these gophers, and then they'll give you a buck, a piece for them. So it's not like a lot of money usually, that buck will pay for the bullet that they, you shot the critter with. So again, the reason I brought this up as this is the most typical use of that firearm, they are 15 is shooting gophers or other vermin. Similar with the AK 47, probably less so just because of the ammo is more expensive. You're not going to want to shoot these things with a pistol because they won't let you get close enough. They will hear you and smell you and then dive under ground into their little tunnel of holes. As soon as they see you or hear you or smell you, and you're still going to be a hundred yards away, so you can't do it with a pistol, but you can definitely do it with the rifle and you don't want to use like a larger size rifle. You're not gonna want to shoot them with the three Oh eight, like something you would shoot a deer with because that round can fly off a lot further and potentially do more damage if it ends up bouncing off something than the little small little rounds that the air 15 uses. Eh, keep in mind the reason they are 15 is what it is when Eugene stoner created that gun. Originally for the U S military, the idea was to have a gun that uses a smaller caliber around because of two factors. One smaller ammunition means you can carry more ammunition on your person. So instead of carrying 25 rounds of ammo, you could carry 50 rounds or maybe 75 rounds of ammo in the same amount of space and more or less in the same amount of weight. By switching to a rifle with a small round in the world, war two they used a lot of rifles that were a a larger platform. They were longer rounds and bigger rounds rounds that we're really capable of. Killing a person or, a lot of animals too, obviously that's guns were mostly used for hunting, but of a larger size animals and what they found. So this is the second reason for the smaller rounds. What they found statistically was that in in war, in the military theater, if you shoot and killed somebody, the enemy, presumably you're not shooting your own people. That takes one person out of the fight. If you shoot, and the wound, somebody that takes two to three people out of the fight, because somebody has to help that wounded person to get moved out of the battlefield and into a into a military hospital on site and presumably further away from battle. The bottom line is it's a higher cost. It's a higher toll for the opposing side to deal with wounded people then to deal with dead people. I know it sounds horrible, but it is. It's just a fact of war. These calculations have been made statistically and having rounds that are more capable of wounding people without killing people, ensures that your enemy has a higher cost of fighting you. If every round actually killed the person that it struck, there would be a little bit certainly of additional effort required, but if somebody is clearly dead, it means nobody else is going to come. To try and rescue that person and then spend the next several hours trying to move them away from the battlefield. It means that person will eventually get collected, but it's just a cadaver at that point. So a lot less effort required. So smaller rounds allow you to carry more ammunition and to create wounded soldiers in the opposite side, rather than dead soldiers on the opposite side. And, potentially that even has a positive spin. If you're not aware of what I just described to you of the real benefit of doing that, the positive spin is, Hey, we don't even try and kill our enemies. We only just shoot to wound like we want even our enemies to survive battle and return home to their families. So there's the positive spin. It all depends on how you look at it. The the size of the AK 47 rounds the size of the Russians use is a slightly larger cartridge. But. It's still a fairly small sized cartridge compared to the guns that were used in world war one, world war two, those rifles were significantly larger size rounds. There was, those are guns that some people still deer hunt with, but you could go elk hunting with you can hunt and maybe even moose, potentially, but you could see how much more of an overkill that is for shooting another person. If you can go hunt in the elk, something that weighs like 500 pounds with that gun versus shooting a person. So why am I talking about the gun rounds as well? I guess my point is, as guns have become more popular with smaller rounds of ammunition, that means instead of having a 10 round magazine, like maybe a 308 would have or even less than 10 rounds, I think a lot of them have six rounds in their magazines. Now you have the capability to carry more ammunition. So why wouldn't you have more in your magazines? So those standard magazines that were typically 30 rounds for rifles or anywhere from 15 to 19 rounds for handguns. Well, the liberals didn't like those either. so consequently, that was also part of the Clinton gun ban was getting rid of all magazines over 10 rounds and they conveniently just started calling them high-capacity magazines. That was an invented term by the anti gunners. There's nothing high capacity about them. A high capacity magazine would be a hundred round magazine for a rifle that is a genuine high capacity magazine. It is only sold aftermarket, no rifle ships with a hundred round magazine that I'm aware of anyway. And so that could legitimately be called a high-capacity magazine. For handguns. I've got some magazines that are, I think a, the biggest one was 50 rounds for Glock. Absolutely ridiculous. Like this magazine is a foot and a half long and it sticks out of the bottom of the gun longer than the length of the gun itself. You look like a complete retard if you're using it. I don't use this magazine ever. I bought magazines like that again when I was in my twenties, when I played video games, when I thought that was really cool, look at this, check it out. I've got 50 rounds in my hand gun it's useless. It is stupid. And when I went through training to learn how to well I learned a lot of things in in firearms training. I've done months and months of that. But one of the things that you learn is how to very quickly change magazines in the gun. So as soon as you fire your last round, the movement to grab a new magazine, Drop the old magazine and insert the new magazine takes less than one and a half seconds while I did, when I was practiced, I'm sure it takes me a lot longer now, but when I was fully practiced, that's less than a second and a half maneuver. And there's no reason to walk around with a 50 round magazine because the other problem with them, large magazines like that is it's a lot harder to count the number of rounds you've shot. I'm gonna give a hat tip to the cartoon Archer, because that's one of the things that Archer, the main character always makes a point of is being shocked that other people aren't counting the number of rounds fired. Cause because he always counts the number of rounds that he fires so that he knows how much is left in his magazine. When you have a magazine that's 15 rounds, not a problem to count all those routes, 30 round magazine, it's a little more difficult, but those magazines will typically have, these are rifle magazines. They will have either a clear, visible part on the back of the magazine. So you can see when it hits five rounds left, or even a little hole that you can touch with your finger. And it feels different whether or not there's more than five rounds in there, or less than five rounds left. So there's ways to be able to notice how many rounds you have. You got a hundred and twenty-five round drum magazine. You have no idea how many rounds you've shot. You have no idea how many rounds are left. You're hoping that there's more rounds left than you need, or you're just going to be shooting at a gun range anyway. And it's not going to matter because whenever you're done. And then you swap out magazines. At that point, also running around with really large oversized magazines, the ones that I would genuinely call high capacity. It makes your weapon a lot heavier because you're not just carrying your ammo on your body, you're carrying your ammo on the weapon. So when you start shooting the weight of the gun slowly decreases, which is good, but why load up your gun with more weight than you need to in the first place? It doesn't make sense. So while again, I think there's, shouldn't be any laws at all relating to the size of magazines. That's a stupid thing to try and regulate because it doesn't matter. It really makes no difference. Ultimately either positively or negatively to how much ammunition somebody will shoot and how much they're carrying having magazines that are larger. It just makes it a little bit more convenient, but also there's some downsides like the weight as well, but that's the reason they used the first time around which I'm sure they'll use again, this time round for. 10 round magazines is saying if there's only 10 rounds in the magazine, it prevents people from gaining shot in a mass shooting situation. I think we saw in the Columbine situation. That was definitely not the case in I can't remember the other, some of the other shooting mass shooters situations we've had, but I think in most of them, the shooters have changed magazines. It wasn't just that they went in with a single magazine and they shout until the magazine was empty and then they were done shooting. I think in most of these situations, they just brought several magazines with them and that's what people will do. so when you limit the size of magazines by law, you're essentially effecting 99% of the population, the 99% who abide by laws. And you're forcing them to then just swap magazines more frequently. And then the 1% that is going to disregard that law they're probably using stolen guns anyway. They're certainly not following any kind of current laws. Those people are, they may use larger magazines or they may use smaller magazines and just swap them, which is not a problem. So trying to ban larger magazines to prevent somebody from shooting more people is like saying if all cars only had five gallon tanks, then nobody would ever drive longer distances in the a hundred miles. Well, no, it's completely ridiculous to say that if all the cars had smaller gas tanks, then it just means people will have to stop more frequently to fill up. As they do their longer drives. It doesn't mean you're not going to eliminate long drives by having smaller gas tanks, but by having larger gas tanks and guessing is actually a pretty good, I think, comparison to the size of the magazine, because you're still only shooting one run at a time, regardless of how many rounds are in your magazine. You're still only burning gas at the same rate of fuel burn from your gas tank, regardless of whether you have a five gallon or a 10 gallon gas tank, any tens about the smallest I've seen, or you have a 24 gallon gas tank like I do in my Jeep. So it's a, there's a large spread there in the size of the gas tanks. And it's actually the same negatives as it is for magazines. Like when you have a 24 gallon gas tank and you fill it up, you're carrying around a couple of hundred extra pounds of weight of fuel everywhere you drive. So your gas mileage actually goes down for a little bit while your tank is full. So it's just added weight with the gun, but you balance that by the convenience factor of being able to go on a long trip. And a lot of times I can go round trip out of Austin to Dallas pool around Dallas for a couple of days, and then come back to Austin and not have to fill up the gas at all during that entire drive or I can drive now, of course, Texas is the biggest state in the country. Driving pretty much in any direction in Texas from where I am is a seven to eight hour drive until you hit the border. So it's about I think it's about seven and a half hours to Mexico. It's about eight hours to New Mexico. It's probably about six and a half hours to Oklahoma or about six hours, six and a half hours to Louisiana. In any of those directions is a fairly substantial drive. Having a bigger gas tank is a positive, just like having more rounds in your gun. If you're not wanting to carry a bunch of magazines with you is also positive, but giving people smaller gas tanks or limiting the size of magazines doesn't mean that people will take shorter trips or that they'll shoot less ammunition. It just means that you're going to make them do something in the middle of that activity to continue doing what they're doing to continue driving or continue shooting. So it's just all stupid stuff. It's all pure politics. It's all pure motion. None of this stuff needs to be regulated or controlled. I have no problem with people doing background checks. So background checks are fine in my book, but beyond that people ought to be able to buy any size magazines, any type of guns. I think we need to bring back ultimately, and of course, good luck doing it in my lifetime, but ideally. Bring back the ability to purchase fully automatic weapons. They are useless and the only people that will be spending money on them are people that just think it's cool. to be able to shoot it in the gun range or on your own property kind of environment, you're not going to be going hunting with fully automatic guns. It's really, it's not like no, one's going to spend the money and buy a fully automatic gun to go on a gun rampage. That's totally unrealistic as well because people that break laws, aren't going to follow the law one minute to acquire their gun and then break the law the next minute to use their gun poorly. People that break laws have a very different mentality and creating laws that target lawless people is just idiocy. So with that, I've once again managed to have a longer than an hour episode. So I apologize for that guys. Hopefully you've enjoyed it. Hopefully I'm bored you to death. If you're already a gun person. If you found mistakes and what I said by all means, let me know. I'm typically recording these episodes with no screens or data in front of me just going purely off memory. So I am certainly fallible and subject to remembering things incorrectly, but I try to remember things as best as I can. And if you are not a gun person and you've actually learned some new things here you're actually the person that I created this episode for. So hopefully you've enjoyed it and you will keep enjoying the podcast. Thanks for listening. Take care.