I rise in opposition to HR 23 77.
I have five grandchildren.
I would do anything.
Anything to protect my five grandchildren, including as a last resort shooting them.
If I had to to protect the lives of my grandchildren,
democrat bills that we've heard this week,
want to take away my right my right to protect my grandchildren.
They want to take away the rights of law abiding citizens to protect their
own Children and grandchildren and wives and brothers and sisters.
This bill takes away due process from law abiding citizens.
Can you imagine if you had a disgruntled ex or somebody who hates
you because of your political views, and they go to a judge and say,
this person is dangerous and that judge would take away your guns,
lean on the side of conservatism, take away the guns without that person even
having a knowledge that there was a court hearing that would take away their guns.
This is wrong.
Okay, so I feel this nature need to try to extend understanding to people who
have provided no explanation for why they deserve it.
That's Debbie Lesko.
And if you think you heard her say that she would be willing to shoot her own
grandkids to protect them.
Yeah, that's what she said.
I'm assuming that's not what she means.
J. R.
Because she did seem to imply that she has a constitutional right to murder her kids.
And grandkids, like she goes on to say that it would be unfair to take
away people's guns for something they say or do.
But I come out of that video thinking I don't think she should have any guns.
Or at the very least she shouldn't have guns.
And to be around her grandkids at the same time.
Yeah. I'm trying to figure out any time.
I mean maybe, you know,
obviously she's probably not advocating to shoot her grandchildren.
That's something that many times happens to people on accident when they have guns
around their houses, leaving them out because they're responsible.
So I'm always looking for, what is it that she was trying to say?
What is it that she could have said instead of shoot them?
What word was supposed to be in place of shoot them?
Maybe she means like shoot someone else to protect them.
But there was I think multiple words missing.
I don't know if like her brain shut down or something.
She's a republican.
It could be one of the inevitable consequences of long covid that does
create a bit of a brain fog.
But but anyway, even if we extend that goodwill.
No, the red flag laws still make again,
we keep going back to this Jr they say don't take away,
don't do anything about guns but be on the watch for people who might be an issue.
And then do what?
Because you're saying don't take their guns.
There should be no mechanism where you can go to a judge and
say this person has been like beating their wife, they're going to town on them.
You've got to stop them from getting a gun.
No, you can't do that.
According to Debbie Lesko and others,
no matter how much evidence you have, it is unacceptable to limit
anyone's access two guns in general to any particular guns, anything like that.
So again, I asked them, what are we supposed to do?
I already know the answer.
We're not supposed to do anything.
We're just supposed to let people continue to be shot.
It's weird because they're totally against these, people who openly and
explicitly say, I want to shoot, I'm planning on shooting the buffalo terrorist
that shot at that grocery store was planning was staking out the joint.
Told people about how they had these aspirations for
killing people in the past.
I think that you've all day a kid who shot up the school, they're similar things.
They talk about a lot.
I think even this guy in Highland Park, his previous instances of them showing
signs of wanting to do this and people seeing it.
And actually some level authorities being called and after that happens,
we don't want anything else done.
It's how dare they try to take someone's guns away just because they said they're
looking to get a gun to kill a bunch of people.
Why don't they want that to be stopped is the question, you have to act.
But many of these same folks would be in support of what went on in new york under
Giuliani.
I think it was Giuliani, with stop and frisk laws,
they targeted certain people for far fewer reasons, actual reasons, But just because
that guy looks like he's suspicious, this one internal thought process of police
officers across the board saying, yeah, let's start stop and frisk frisking these
minorities because you know what they always do, how you in support of that.
But you're in opposition to people seeing someone who explicitly said, I want to
kill people and let's make sure that they have a much tougher chance of doing that.
Maybe it's the person, it's just not, we feel this need to point out hypocrisy and
all that, but they don't have consistency as a value.
They don't care.
It can be whatever it needs to be.
Yeah, don't let her have a gun though.
Or at least don't let her unassisted.
Like, unlike supervised be around kids, there's something wrong with her.
Mhm.