YESTERDAY WHEN WE REPORTED ON THE UMPQUA COMMUNITY COLLEGE
SHOOTING AND THE RELATIVELY IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH, THERE WAS
VERY LITTLE CONFIRMED HARD INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING
ON.
IT HAS BEEN 24 HOURS AND NOW WE KNOW QUITE A BIT MORE ABOUT
THE SITUATION AS IT DEVELOPED.
NINE PEOPLE WERE KILLED, THE
SHOOTER AS WELL.
A NUMBER MORE WOUNDED.
SOME REPORTS SAY 20,
SOME SAY 25.
AFTERWARD, 13 WEAPONS WERE FOUND.
AT THE
COLLEGE THEY FOUND FIVE PISTOLS, ONE RIFLE, AND FIVE MAGAZINES OF
AMMUNITION, AT THE RESIDENCE TWO PISTOLS, FOUR RIFLES, AND ONE
SHOT GUN AND AMMUNITION.
WE'VE ALSO HEARD THAT NEAR THE RIFLE
ON THE CAMPUS THERE WAS A FLAK JACKET, THERE HAD BEEN INITIAL
REPORTS HE WAS WEARING SOME FORM OF BODY ARMOR.
AS I SUSPECTED
YESTERDAY, ALL OF THE GUNS WERE LEGAL, OBTAINED BY THE SHOOTER
OR FAMILY MEMBERS.
OBTAINED LEGALLY OR BEING TRANSFERRED TO
HIM, WHETHER HE GOT THEM, STOLE THEM, WE DON'T KNOW THAT.
WE
KNOW THEY WERE INITIALLY, BY WHOEVER IT WAS WHO OBTAINED
THEM, OBTAINED LEGALLY.
THERE IS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM
EYEWITNESSES AT THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DURING THE SHOOTING.
STACY BOYLAN, HER FATHER TALKED TO HER, SHE SAYS THAT THE SHOOTER
SAYS I HAVE BEEN WAITING TO DO THIS FOR YEARS, BEFORE SHOOTING
THE PROFESSOR.
WE INITIALLY HEARD REPORTS THAT HE HAD BEEN
TARGETING CHRISTIANS IN SOME WAY, AND THIS INFORMATION IS
COMING FROM STACY BOYLAN WHO TOLD IT TO HER FATHER.
SHE SAID
THEY WOULD STAND UP AND HE SAID GOOD, BECAUSE YOU ARE A
CHRISTIAN YOU WILL SEE GOD IN JUST ABOUT ONE SECOND, AFTER
ASKING THE QUESTION, AS WE SAID YESTERDAY.
THEN HE SHOT AND
KILLED THEM.
FROM AT LEAST ONE OF THE WITNESSES IT DOES SEEM
THAT THE INITIAL REPORTS THAT HE HAD SOME SORT OF SPECIFICALLY
ANTI-CHRISTIAN ANIMUS OR BIAS DOES SEEM TO BE TRUE.
WE HAVE A
LOT MORE INFORMATION OBVIOUSLY, BUT IT HAS BEEN 24 HOURS, WE
HAVE HAD TIME TO BOTH LEARN MORE AND THINK ABOUT IT MORE,
WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS?
DO YOU WANT TO START?
FIRST OF ALL, IT IS A GOOD THING WE HELD OFF YESTERDAY
BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME INFORMATION THAT WAS WRONG
YESTERDAY, AND THERE IS SOME INFORMATION TODAY THAT WAS WRONG.
AND WE WILL LEARN MORE.
THE SHERIFF DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE A
GUY WHO ENJOYS SHARING INFORMATION WITH THE PRESS, HIS
STAND ON NOT NAMING THE SHOOTER IS NOBLE.
BUT YESTERDAY HE
SEEMED, THAT ASIDE, HE SEEMED DELIBERATELY HESITANT TO SHARE
INFORMATION.
WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE GUY WAS KILLED BY
POLICE OR WHETHER HE KILLED HIMSELF.
THEY USED A STRANGE WORD
YESTERDAY, THE SHERIFF DID, THAT HE WAS NEUTRALIZED.
I HAD A BAD
VIBE FROM THE SHERIFF YESTERDAY WITHOUT KNOWING ANYTHING WE KNOW
TODAY, BECAUSE HE SAID NEUTRALIZED.
I THOUGHT, STOP
SHOWING OFF.
SO WE WILL WAIT AND SEE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE
THING ABOUT CHRISTIANS IS PROBABLY TRUE.
SHE WOULDN'T SAY
IT UNLESS IT WERE TRUE, AND SHE IS ONE OF THE VICTIMS.
A LOT OF
OTHER REPORTS CAME OUT ABOUT WHO HE HAD A PARTICULAR ANIMUS TO,
AND HIS OWN ETHNICITY MAY HAVE ENTERED INTO THAT OR IT MAY NOT.
BUT WE WILL FIND OUT IN THE COMING DAYS, THERE IS NO REASON
WE HAVE TO KNOW TODAY.
WE WILL KNOW FINALLY WHEN INFORMATION STARTS COMING
OUT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY.
TO ME IT IS JUST ANOTHER LOSER WITH A GUN.
THAT'S ALL IT IS.
WHO CARES WHY THEY DID IT?
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FLAVOR, SAME BASIC IDEA.
HE PRAISED THIS GUY, THE MOST RECENT LOSER WITH A GUN, THE GUY
WHO SHOT THE TV REPORTER AND CAMERAMAN IN VIRGINIA.
THIS GUY
SPECIFICALLY WROTE A POST SOMEWHERE THAT HE WAS
INTERESTED IN THAT GUY.
ONE OF THOSE WARNING SIGNS PEOPLE SHOULD BE LOOKING OUT
FOR.
AND WE KNOW THERE WERE SOME ACTIVITIES ON SITES LIKE 4CHAN,
THINGS LIKE THAT, OF THE SAME SORT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS
CONFIRMED TO BE HIM, BUT THOSE ARE THE SORT OF PLACES WHERE
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LOOK FOR WARNING SIGNS, WHICH BOTH
LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES THINK WE SHOULD BE ON THE LOOKOUT FOR,
BECAUSE IN MANY CASES THERE SEEMS TO BE A STRONG CONNECTION
BETWEEN MENTAL PROBLEMS AND VIOLENCE, ALTHOUGH THAT IS NOT
THE ONLY THING THAT APPARENTLY DRIVES PEOPLE TO DO THESE SORTS
OF ACTS, THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS WE NEED TO BE ON THE
LOOKOUT FOR.
GLORIFICATION OF VIOLENCE --
YOU SAID LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES SHOULD BE LOOKING
OUT FOR THIS TOGETHER, AND I AGREE AND I THINK THEY WILL BE,
I HOPE THEY WILL BE.
BUT I WOULD CHALLENGE SOME CONSERVATIVES TO
THIS, I WANT THESE SHOOTINGS TO STOP MORE THAN I WANT YOU TO BE
ABLE TO HAVE WHATEVER GUN YOU WANT.
THOSE ARE MY VALUES, THAT
IS A VALUE JUDGMENT I AM MAKING.
I AM CERTAIN THAT THERE ARE GUN
OWNERS AND GUN LOVERS OUT THERE WHO FEEL THE SAME.
AND I THINK
IT WAS THE PRESIDENT WHO ASKED TODAY THAT SOME GUN OWNERS, AND
I KNOW THERE ARE SOME WHO ARE NEVER GOING TO BE REACHED, BUT
THERE ARE PLENTY WHO HAVE GOT TO COME UP AND REALIZE THIS
ORGANIZATION THAT REPRESENTS GUN OWNERS PROBABLY DOES NOT
REPRESENT ME.
NOBODY IS TAKING ALL YOUR GUNS AWAY, IT IS NOT
GOING TO HAPPEN.
BUT WE CAN'T BEGIN TO TAKE THE FIRST STEPS TO
A MEANINGFUL CONVERSATION SO THAT IN SEVERAL DECADES THERE
WON'T BE SO MANY OF THESE A YEAR?
WE ALREADY HAVE HAD 294 THIS YEAR.
I ASSUME WE WILL HAVE 315 BY THE END OF THE YEAR, THE NUMBER
IS ASTRONOMICALLY HIGH.
AND WE CAN HAVE FEWER, AND THERE ARE
REASONABLE STEPS WE CAN TAKE.
YOU CAN LOVE GUNS AND SAY NO TO
THE NRA ABOUT SOME DEGREE OF MEANINGFUL GUN LEGISLATION.
YOU WILL NEVER GET AS FAR AS I WOULD LIKE TO GO, I WOULD
LIKE TO COME GET THEM ALL, I WOULD.
I GET IT, I LOST THAT ARGUMENT.
BUT WE CAN START HAVING A REASONABLE CONVERSATION.
IT IS HARD.
IT'S A COMPLICATED ISSUE, NOT LEAST BECAUSE YOU
ALREADY HAVE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF GUNS OUT THERE IN
CIRCULATION.
AND THEY ALL WORK.
AND THEY WILL WORK FOR AS LONG AS THE PERSON TAKES CARE OF IT,
COLLEGIATE AND OILS IT.
SO IF I HAD IT, IT WOULD BE BROKEN IN LIKE A YEAR AND A HALF.
IF YOU ARE SHOOTING IT.
IF YOU ARE NOT SHOOTING IT, IT IS
JUST SITTING THERE, IT WILL BE FINE FOR A LONG, LONG TIME.
IF YOU SHOOT IT AND DON'T CLEAN IT THAT IS THE ONLY TIME
YOU HAVE A PROBLEM.
THERE IS MORE IN TERMS OF UPDATES AND EVERYTHING, BUT I AM
INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
I HAVE BEEN THINKING A
LOT ABOUT THE SORTS OF LAWS THAT YOU COULD PASS OR SHOULD PASS,
AND WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE EFFECTIVE AND ACCEPTABLE.
I
WOULD HOPE THAT EFFECTIVE IS MORE IMPORTANT, BUT WE KNOW HOW
SERIOUSLY PEOPLE TAKE THIS.
AND THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE THE ARGUMENT
THAT THEY ARE NEEDED TO STOP THE GOVERNMENT FROM TAKING OVER, I
GET WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
I THINK THAT IS A FANTASY.
THERE SEEMS
TO BE A LOT OF FANTASIES THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON ARE
CORRELATED WITH GUN OWNERSHIP, AND MY FATHER OWNED MANY GUNS,
THANKFULLY HE DID NOT HAVE THOSE SORT OF FANTASIES BUT IT SEEMS
TO BE PRETTY POPULAR.
WE WILL GET TO THE IDEA OF A GOOD GUY
WITH A GUN STOPPING MASS SHOOTINGS, ANOTHER FANTASY THAT
SEEMS TO GO WITH GUN OWNERSHIP.
REALLY FAST, THERE ARE SOME
REGULATIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED, OR NOT EVEN REGULATIONS,
TECHNICAL ADVANCES IN GUNS THAT PEOPLE COME UP WITH THEM
AND TRY TO SELL THE GUNS, AND THE REACTION TO THAT TELLS
ME THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH THE TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT.
SMART GUNS?
SMART GUNS THAT WILL ONLY FIRE FOR THE PERSON WHO BOUGHT IT.
STORES GET BOYCOTTED IF THEY TRY TO SELL IT.
I'M NOT SURE THAT GUN IS ON THE MARKET.
I MET WITH THE WOMAN
WHO WAS PUTTING THAT GUN OUT IN THE U.S., IT WAS DESIGNED BY A
GUY FROM GLOCK, THEY HAD A KEY FOR IT, NOT THE ACTUAL GUN
ITSELF, BUT THEY ALSO SELL TRIGGER LOCKS.
AND THERE WAS
HYSTERIA AMONG PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY WERE SELLING TRIGGER LOCKS.
I DON'T THINK I COULD EVER HAVE A GUN IN THE HOUSE WITHOUT A
TRIGGER LOCK WHEN YOU HAVE KIDS.
MENTAL HEALTH THINGS ASIDE, CHILDREN WILL PICK THIS
STUFF UP.
AND DO CONSTANTLY.
AND IF YOU SAY THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE GUN
IS TO PROTECT YOUR FAMILY, ACT LIKE IT.
MAKE SURE THEY ARE NOT
FACING MORE RISK FROM THEIR NEW PROTECTOR, THE GUN, THEN
FROM THE HYPOTHETICAL FIENDS AND BAD PEOPLE WHO WILL BREAK
INTO YOUR HOUSE AND KILL THEM.
THE HISTORY OF ODDS ON GUN OWNERSHIP, THE MOST LIKELY
PERSON KILLED BY THAT GUN WILL BE A MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY.
THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.
YOU MIGHT HYPOTHETICALLY LOWER YOUR RISK OF BEING KILLED BY
BRIGANDS BREAKING INTO YOUR HOUSE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY THAT IS
OFFSET BY THE FACT THAT YOU OR ANOTHER MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY
ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO KILL THEMSELVES ACCIDENTALLY.
EVERY
THREE WEEKS WE GET A STORY OF SOMEBODY SHOOTING THEMSELVES OR
THEIR KIDS WHILE THEY ARE CLEANING THEIR GUN.
THEY ARE
INHERENTLY DANGEROUS, AND THEY NEED TO BE TREATED THAT WAY.
THEY ARE NOT SIMPLY A REPRESENTATION OF AMERICAN
FREEDOM AND ALL THAT IS GREAT IN AMERICA.
IN TERMS OF TAKING
AWAY, I THINK IT IS IMPOSSIBLE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE WANT
TO, THERE IS SOMETHING LIKE 310 MILLION GUNS OWNED BY CIVILIANS.
AT LEAST.
AT THE VERY LEAST, THAT WE KNOW OF.
YOU CAN DO A LOT, I
THINK.
I THINK THERE IS A LOT YOU CAN DO WHEN 40% OF ALL GUNS
ARE SOLD PRIVATELY FROM ONE INDIVIDUAL TO ANOTHER WITH NO
BACKGROUND CHECK WHATSOEVER, WHICH MEANS THAT THE WHOLE IDEA
OF BACKGROUND CHECKS AS A WAY TO STOP CRAZY PEOPLE FROM GETTING
GUNS IS NULLIFIED.
THAT DOESN'T GET TALKED ABOUT ENOUGH.
YOU BROUGHT UP THAT THOSE WHO SAY IT IS THERE TO PROTECT US
FROM A TYRANNICAL, OVERREACHING GOVERNMENT -- FUCK THOSE GUYS.
I THINK IT ALSO RESTS ON A FAIRLY DISRESPECTFUL VIEW
OF THE MILITARY.
IT IS A COMPLETELY DISRESPECTFUL VIEW OF THE U.S.
MILITARY.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN?
THAT THEY THINK THE MILITARY WILL INVOLVE TAKING OVER THE
COUNTRY.
IT IS DISRESPECTFUL THAT THEY THINK THEY COULD STOP IT,
WITH THEIR RIFLE AND SHOTGUN.
I DON'T THINK THE ARMY WILL GO ALONG WITH THIS.
I LOVE SEVEN
DAYS IN MAY, A GREAT MOVIE, BUT THIS IS NOT HAPPENING.
THAT IS A
FRINGE GROUP AND IT IS PECULIAR TO ME THAT POLITICALLY WE FEEL
THE NEED -- YOU SAID AT THIS TIME, I MIGHT HAVE SAID IT TOO,
THAT WE FEEL THE NEED TO CATER TO PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY NEED
GUNS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM WHEN THE GOVERNMENT TURNS ON ITS
OWN PEOPLE.
THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE CONVERSATION.
THAT IS A HUGE PERCENTAGE OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
INTERESTED IN GUN OWNERSHIP.
I GOT IT.
THEY AREN'T IN THE CONVERSATION, THAT IS A NUTTY, CRAZY THING TO
BELIEVE.
AND THEY ARE NOT THE ONES WE ARE TRYING TO REACH.
THERE ARE
MANY WHO SIMPLY BELIEVE, FALSELY, THAT THEY ARE SAFER IF
THEY HAVE A GUN ON THEIR PERSON OR IN THEIR HOUSE, THEY
PERHAPS CAN BE REACHED.
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT IDEOLOGICALLY DRIVEN.
I THINK IF YOU LIVE WAY OUT IN THE COUNTRY, I THINK YOU
ARE SAFER WITH A GUN.
THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE, WHO IF YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT, YOU
PROBABLY ARE SAFER.
BUT NOT IN SUBURBAN AMERICA AND URBAN AMERICA.
AND THE OTHER THING, THE IDEA THAT THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE
SECOND AMENDMENT, I THINK THAT IS ONE INTERPRETATION, BUT IF
YOU LOOK AT THE LITERAL WORDS THAT IS NOT THE ONLY
INTERPRETATION.
BUT ALSO THE IDEA THAT IT IS IN THERE SO THAT
IT'S AWESOME FOR ALL TIME, WE SHOULD NEVER CHANGE IT -- IF YOU
BELIEVE THAT, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PURPOSE OF AN AMENDMENT
IS.
THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION MIGHT HAVE BEEN AT THE TIME, AND
EVEN NOW, THE BEST POLITICAL DOCUMENT EVER WRITTEN, OR ONE OF
THE BEST WITH THE MAGNA CARTA AND A COUPLE OF OTHERS, BUT IT
HAD SEVERAL INHERENT FATAL FLAWS.
TALK TO ANY AFRICAN-AMERICAN IN THE COUNTRY 150
YEARS AGO, THERE WERE FLAWS THAT NEEDED TO BE FIXED.
THERE MIGHT BE SOME IN THERE.
THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF MISTAKES.
AND WE HAVE GUN
CONTROL, IN WORLD WAR II THE MOST FEARED GUNS WERE THE GERMAN
88S, THEY WERE GIGANTIC, THEY SHOT A LONG WAY.
YOU ARE NOT
ALLOWED TO OWN ONE.
YOU CAN'T HAVE ONE.
THE EXAMPLE USED ALL THE TIME, YOU CAN'T HAVE A BAZOOKA.
IT IS A GUN.
NOBODY BELIEVES THAT YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE
INFRINGED IN SOME WAY.
OR THE FIRST CONVICTED SERIAL KILLER IN
JAIL WHO ASKS TO BUY AN AK-47, YOU SAY NO, YOU ARE SAYING
IMPLICITLY, THERE ARE SOME REASONS WE DO NOT GIVE PEOPLE --
WE INFRINGE IN A VARIETY OF WAYS.
WE HAVE GUN CONTROL, THE QUESTION IS WHAT KIND WILL WE
HAVE?
AND THE PRESIDENT SAID TODAY TO THE PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT
THERE SHOULD BE FEWER GUN LAWS AND MORE GUNS, THAT IS THE WAY
TO STOP THIS, THAT IS PARTLY THE GROUP WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, THE
PRESIDENT SAID, COME ON.
NOBODY REALLY BELIEVES THAT.
WE'RE GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE TO
REGISTER THEIR WEAPONS.
I THINK THAT WEAPON REGISTRY SHOULD BE
CROSS-REFERENCED WITH MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS FOR PEOPLE WHO
PRESENT A DANGER TO THEMSELVES OR SOCIETY.
I LOVE THE IDEA THAT THE SOLUTION IS MORE GUNS.
IT FEELS LIKE IN A COUPLE MORE DECADES THERE WILL NOT BE
ENOUGH AMERICAN HANDS TO HOLD ALL THE GUNS.
IT IS LIKE SAYING --
PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO FIGHT THE DRUG PROBLEM WITH MORE DRUGS.
WE'VE NEVER TRIED THAT, THOUGH.
MORE COCAINE, THAT IS WHAT WE NEED.
BEFORE WE TURN TO POLITICIANS' STATEMENTS, THERE WAS ONE AREA ñ
WE MENTIONED THE SHERIFF, I HOPE THAT HE DOES EVERYTHING HE NEEDS
TO DO IN TERMS OF THE INVESTIGATION, FINDING OUT WHAT
WE CAN ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED, BUT HE SENT A LETTER TO VICE
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN NOT TOO LONG AGO AND WE HAVE CUT OUT A FEW
SECTIONS TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF PERHAPS SOME BIASES THAT HE MAY
BE HOLDING AS HE INVESTIGATES.
HE SAID IN PART, THIS LETTER
SERVES TWO PURPOSES, FIRST TO MAKE A FORMAL REQUEST THAT YOU
NOT TAMPER WITH OR ATTEMPT TO AMEND THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
GUN
CONTROL IS NOT THE ANSWER TO PREVENTING HEINOUS CRIMES LIKE
SCHOOL SHOOTINGS.
THAT IS DEBATABLE.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS
RULED WHEN A SHERIFF CHOOSES TO ENFORCE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
DIRECTIVE, HE IS VIOLATING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL OATH.
I WILL NOT
VIOLATE MY CONSTITUTIONAL OATH, NOR WILL I PERMIT THE
ENFORCEMENT OF ANY UNCONSTITUTIONAL REGULATIONS OR
ORDERS BY FEDERAL OFFICERS WITHIN THE BORDERS OF DOUGLAS
COUNTY, OREGON.
IN CONCLUSION, IT IS MY POSITION AS DOUGLAS
COUNTY SHERIFF THAT I WILL REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN NOR TOLERATE
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AGAINST CITIZENS THAT ARE DEEMED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
I CAN ONLY IMAGINE WHEN HE SAYS HE WILL NOT
PERMIT THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL OFFICERS, WHAT HE WILL
USE TO ENFORCE THAT.
I ASSUME VIOLENCE.
AND WHO IS DEEMING IT CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT?
HE IS, HIMSELF.
HE DOESN'T CARE.
I KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT HIM, I COVER GUYS
LIKE THIS, I HAVE READ THIS GUY ñ- HE IS AN OATH KEEPER, HE
ALLIES HIMSELF WITH CLIVEN BUNDY, I BET HE WOULD ALLY
HIMSELF WITH KIM DAVIS, I DON'T KNOW HIS POSITION ON GAY
MARRIAGE BUT I COULD GUESS.
AND I DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT
HIM, SOME OF THE HATE WILL COME AND I EMBRACE IT.
THERE WILL BE A LOT OF HATE.
HE WROTE VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN.
HE DOES NOT THINK BARACK OBAMA IS HIS PRESIDENT, THAT IS
WHY HE DID THAT.
THAT IS INTERESTING.
THAT DID NOT EVEN OCCUR TO ME.
I WOULD BET THE CONFUSING EXPRESSION DOLLARS TO DONUTS
THAT THIS GUY THINKS THAT ESPECIALLY EARLY 2013, BEFORE
HIS SECOND INAUGURATION, NOT HIS PRESIDENT.
BIDEN, THAT GUY, HE
IS THE VICE PRESIDENT.
NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO.
MAYBE HE DID NOT HAVE THE PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS.
MAYBE HE THINKS BIDEN IS MORE LIKELY TO READ FAN LETTERS.
YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE -- --
WES, I SUSPECT YOU KNOW MORE COPS, SOME GUYS YOU SERVED WITH BECAME
COPS.
MOST POLICE OFFICERS ARE IN FAVOR OF GUN CONTROL BECAUSE
THEY DON'T LIKE MORE PEOPLE HAVING GUNS.
THEY LIKE WHEN
THERE IS NO GUN IN THE HOUSE WHEN THEY GO INTO THE HOUSE.
THERE ARE SOME LIKE JOHN HANLIN WHO WANT LESS GUN CONTROL, BUT
THEY ARE IN THE MINORITY OF POLICE OFFICERS.
I DON'T THINK
WE SHOULD BE ELECTING SHERIFFS IN THIS COUNTRY, I NEVER HAVE, WES
AND I WERE TALKING BEFORE THE SHOW.
SHERIFFS, JUDGES, THE JOB
OF A SHERIFF, HE IS NOT THE MAYOR.
IT'S A PROFESSIONAL JOB FOR
A PROFESSIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.
HE MAY BE ONE, HE MAY
HAVE BEEN A PROFESSIONAL LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, I DON'T
KNOW, BUT IN GENERAL THIS IS NOT A POSITION WHERE YOU OUGHT TO BE
CAMPAIGNING.
THAT IS A CAMPAIGN LETTER THAT HE WROTE.
IT IS WRONG FOR A SHERIFF, FOR A CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS KIND OF
NONSENSE.
AND IF YOU WANT THAT YOU SHOULD WRITE THE PRESIDENT,
BECAUSE BARACK OBAMA IS YOUR PRESIDENT.