How Gospel Coalition Promotes Liberalism - Part 4

All right, well, hey, let's jump right into it this week. So before I begin, let me just say, I hope you had a great weekend. I hope you had a good Lord's Day and everything. I had a great one. I had the opportunity to lead Sunday school.

We were going through the prodigal son parable, and I also led the congregational singing this week as well, which was really fun, although it was almost a disaster. They changed songs at the last minute and didn't tell me, and I was definitely unfamiliar with this hymn, but I think it worked out okay.

Luckily, we had the violin playing as well, and she was doing the melody with the violin, which was very helpful. So in any case, before I get into the meat of this, I actually recorded this episode already, and the reason I'm telling you is number one, well, what happened was the audio, my audio cut out like halfway through, and it was going great.

I mean, I was, you know, passion speech against this nonsense, and it was going great, and then the audio cut out. So whenever that happens, I usually take that as a sign that, you know, maybe it's a good thing that that episode didn't air.

Not that I said anything wrong, but maybe I was just, maybe it was too much. But in any case, the reason I'm telling you is number one, I'm not 100 sure I'm catching this right where I left off. So if I miss a few sentences, I'm not trying to hide anything.

It's just that I just did my best to figure out where we were. And then also, I wanted to let you know that this is not a live response. I've actually heard this section before, and I don't know why I feel the need to tell you that, but I think some of you guys kind of like the idea that I'm watching this kind of live and responding as I hear it kind of thing.

So I don't want to mislead you. This episode, I've heard this content before, so I've already reacted to it. I've already had time to think about it, and there it is. I just wanted to clear that up. Just to be 100 transparent with you guys.

But this section, boy, woo boy, it's a doozy. I was feeling really good about it, and then I heard one line from the pro gun guy, the one who doesn't want gun control, and it changes the whole flavor of this.

And I could not believe he said what he said. It was just so preposterous, I think is a good word. Preposterous, maybe just ridiculous, like unbelievable, like incredible. I don't know, incredible in the normal sense of the word.

Okay, let's just start, and we'll go from there.

Jesus, the Law, and New Covenant Theology

I think that's what Jesus is teaching. So I don't think the Old Testament arguments, particularly, because I think Jesus is saying, you have heard it was said, but I'm saying this. And in a sense, it'd be the same as what is said about lust or divorce and many other things.

Jesus is calling us to a higher standard.

Okay, so let me just stop there. So I didn't actually catch everything that I caught last time. This is towards the end of what he just said. But if you hear what he just said, he really believes that Jesus is actually overturning the law of God.

He's saying, look, the Old Testament stuff that you bring up to defend the right to defense, and the one law he brought up about, if somebody comes into your house in the middle of the night and you strike them down, you're not guilty of their blood.

If somebody comes into your house in the middle of the night and you strike them down dead, there's no guilt there, right? There's no guilt there. You didn't do anything wrong. You didn't know what he was there for.

He could have been coming in to kill your family. You didn't know, so you were defending yourself. This man says, no, no, no, no, no. You see, Jesus, when he said, you have heard it said, but I say, what he was actually doing was saying, no, no, no, the Old Testament law, that's not correct anymore.

Now we do this. And the reality is, if that's your ethic, if you've got this, I think it's called new covenant theology. I could be wrong on that because I'm not a theologian, but if your idea is that Jesus was teaching a different law than the Old Testament law, and he's like, look, I know that the Bible says this, but then unfortunately, logically, Jesus couldn't be the savior, right?

Because it was a sin, being born under the law, it was a sin to teach a different law, right? It was a sin to overturn the law of God. This Bible specifically says he does not come to do that. Jesus did not come to do that, right?

In fact, if Jesus taught otherwise than the law, he could not be the savior because as a Jew being born under the law, he was accountable to it, and a Jew could not do that. And so when you hear Jesus say, you have heard it said, but I say to you, what he is definitely not doing is overturning the law of God.

He's not teaching a different law, definitely not. And if you take that to its logical conclusion, unfortunately, you don't have a savior, that Jesus could not be the savior. He was not a perfect man if he taught different law, if he overturned that law.

That's why the Bible specifically says, do not think I have come to overturn the law or to abolish the law. I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. If he actually came to fulfill the law, he could not have taught a different law.

That's a big deal. It's not really a huge part of this debate or this conversation, but that's a huge deal. That new covenant theology stuff, that's poison. That's poison. We have to reject that.

The Civil Government and the Right to Bear Arms

In a context where you do think some weapons can be used and some can't, I'm interested, where is the line? Or is that just the line that it exists within the US?

And I will say, since I allowed your question to be directed to him, would you mind answering that question? Where does it end?

Yeah, I'll do the best I can. What's interesting is we're really in the heart of political theology here, aren't we? I was trying to make the broadest case from a natural law Bible sort of ethic, a theological case for the Bible permits us to defend other people's rights to existence.

And I think the right to bear arms is a derivative of that imperative. I think everyone would agree with the point that you made, which is that on a spectrum, we all agree that we don't have a right to own a suitcase nuke or a drone, right?

There are certain weapons we just say, well, you have to draw the line somewhere. And so I think what's interesting is it seems that every nation sort of has to define that for their own. We don't all agree about that though.

See, that's the thing. And I think when you look at these good faith debates, these Big Eva debates, oftentimes they try to present a case that's really not the principled case. Because the reality is that we don't all agree on that.

If you want to own a tank, I don't think that the Bible says that the government has the right to limit you from owning a tank. Now, this is the thing though, because people start to go crazy here, like that woman that was interviewing Jordan Peterson.

When you hear somebody say what I just said, I don't think the Bible gives the government, the civil governing authority, the right to limit you from owning an F -14 Tomcat if you could afford it, right?

If you wanted to own an F -14 Tomcat and you could afford it, I don't think the government has the right to limit that, right? However, this is also not, we're not talking about chaos, right? We're not talking about being foolish.

Because here's the thing, the law of God is a unit, right? And so we need to start applying all of it. That's the ideal. Now, obviously it takes steps to get there and we're not there yet. But here's the ideal situation.

The ideal situation is the government doesn't limit if you wanna own a F -14 Tomcat or a tank or whatever it might be, some artillery, whatever it might be. But it also doesn't mean that you let just anybody do it.

So in other words, if there's a career criminal out there and he always commits crimes and he's just a menace to society, he just never ever seems to learn his lesson, you don't have to let someone like that own a weapon.

You don't have to do that. But the thing is, we wouldn't really have this problem in a biblical society. Because in a biblical society, those menace to societies that just career criminals and they just, maybe they start by killing animals and then they start attacking people and they get arrested, but they still don't stop.

They get punished, but they still don't stop. They're thieves, they're stealing stuff. They're doing this, they're doing that. They're threatening people. In a biblical law system, those people are executed, right?

If you just continue to commit crimes and you don't care how many times you get caught, you don't care how many times you get punished for it, you don't care. If that's you, eventually you're no longer fit to live.

This is actually what the unruly child law that atheists like to point to and say, you're gonna kill children in the Bible? The Bible promotes killing children. It's not about killing children. It's about your son, if he's a menace to society, you don't have the right to defend him.

It's your fault that you raise a person and he became an adult and he became a menace to society. That's your fault. You don't have the right to defend him. And so habitual career criminals don't have the right to bear arms.

In fact, they don't even have the right to live. You see, this is the thing. So I'm not like an idealist, like it's either all or nothing, right? Because it's gonna take steps to get to a fully biblical society.

I get that. We're gonna take those steps and that's definitely going to happen. There's no two ways about it. But until we get there, we don't have to be stupid, right? And so we should have as much freedom as possible when it comes to gun ownership or weapon ownership without being stupid.

Since we're not executing menaces to society, people that are career criminals that never ever learned their lesson, since we're not executing those people right now, we definitely don't let them have weapons.

But in an ideal Christian society, people that commit crimes over and over and over and over and over again, there's some people that I know in my mind that have affected people in my life that are just, they've been arrested like 10 times and they never learn and they just are still released.

It's like, well, you know, it's just a minor petty crime that he did. We have to release him, you know, only a year in prison. And it's like, and then of course he re-offends and he re-offends and he re-offends and it's only a matter of time before they kill somebody.

It's only a matter of time before they ratchet this thing up and according to biblical justice, biblical law, biblical jurisprudence, someone like that who just continues to commit a crime and no matter what happens to them, they just keep doing it, they keep doing it.

They don't have a right to live anymore. And so they certainly don't have a right to own a weapon. You see, I'm not talking about being stupid, but at the same time, in an ideal biblical society, which is, I think we're talking about the Bible here, right?

At least I thought so, that's what these good faith debates were about. In an ideal biblical society, the government simply does not have the right to limit this. That's the ideal. Our society, of course, we have to be, we can't be stupid, right?

We can't be naive, I guess is my point. And so no, we don't all agree that the government can arbitrarily say, well, you can have an AR -15, but you can't have an automatic weapon. Or you can have a handgun or a hunting rifle, but you can't have an AR -15.

The government has no right to arbitrarily decide that kind of stuff. It simply does not, biblically speaking.

They have to set the boundary where they choose to as a nation. And so I don't, it's interesting to me that I don't know how we can answer biblically the question of where does the line draw?

See, because you're asking the wrong question, right? You're asking biblically, is there a biblical reason, a way to draw the line, right? That's the wrong question because what we should be asking is, according to the Bible, it gives the roles of the civil governing authority, it gives the roles of the church, it tells us who has what authority, right?

According to the Bible, does the government even have the authority to limit the right to bear arms, to limit the kind of weapons you should have? Does it even have that authority? And the answer is no, it does not, biblically, biblically.

Owning a weapon is up to an individual choice, right? The father of the household gets to decide what weapons that they decide to have, whether it be a sword or a knife, a machete, a firearm, whatever it might be.

By the way, like, again, this whole idea of like, you know, F -14 Tomcats and tanks and ownership of that stuff, this is all a sideshow anyway, this is all a distraction anyway because hardly anybody has the ability to buy those kinds of things.

But if we're talking about it, okay, biblically speaking, does the government have the right to do it? No. So the reason why you can't find a biblical case for this is because you're asking the wrong questions.

And actually, you've already admitted a faulty premise, which is going to destroy you in just a minute. This man has done such a good job up until this point, but he is about to turn into a puddle of goo.

And when I heard this live, when I didn't know what was coming, I was shocked. I mean, I reacted, in my opinion, appropriately, but I was shocked at how...

We'll just hear it. I say, as an American, that's where the Supreme Court has answered that question for us in terms of saying, it applies to the kinds of weapons you would have for hunting and for your own personal use, but not to the kinds of weapon that only exist for national defense or for a military use.

And again, I think, is that line arbitrary? Sure, in some ways.

So which side of the line would you put assault weapons? I don't know.

I probably am ambivalent on that because I think that's one of the live debates in the American context is just, do those... I know people who use those for hunting. I know people who would say,.

Those are only meant for military use, and I think you can make a case. So he was just destroyed. I mean, his side of the debate has now lost because of that. And so this other guy here, he senses blood in the water, right?

So hold on, let's go back and hear that.

So biblically, the question of where does the line draw? And so that's where I say, as an American, that's where the Supreme Court has answered that question for us in terms of saying, it applies to the kinds of weapons you would have for hunting and for your own personal use, but not to the kinds of weapon that only exist for national defense or for a military use.

Okay, so right there. And again, I think, is that line arbitrary? Sure, in some ways.

Okay, so right there, this man here, he's not a stupid man. I mean, he's lying about the Bible, we get it. He's making really dumb arguments. He's using wrong statistics and stuff like that, but he's doing it all because he's a propagandist.

He's swallowed the propaganda, and now he's sharing the propaganda with the Christian audience, and he puts a little Christian-y spin on it, but it's still propaganda. He's not a stupid man, though, and so he just sat here, this British guy, just sat here and heard this guy give him his entire case, his entire case about common-sense gun control, or whatever, excluding the pacifism, which is just a separate thing.

He brought that in here, who knows, whatever. He gave, the other guy gives him his case. He says, well, the Supreme Court tells us what to do, and they've defined it, hunting rifles is okay, but not guns or weapons that are only used for military use, and this guy's like, I just won, so here we go.

What about assault weapons? He even uses the propaganda term, assault weapons. That's not a real thing, but it's a propaganda term. He uses it, he says, well, what about assault weapons? You just got done saying that the almighty Supreme Court, which I agree, it's almighty.

I mean, that's where our rights come from, right? So the almighty Supreme Court, the lawgiver of our nation, has told us, defined what this is. What about assault weapons, though? Because the AR -15, that's a weapon that is used for war, not really used for hunting, that kind of thing.

What about that? What side of the line do you put that? He asks him, because that's the debate here. He's arguing for gun control based on that specific thing. That was his argument. And this other guy over here, who gave a great opening statement, and he talked about, if you remember, he talked about Ukraine, right?

You remember that? He said that Ukraine, because they need to have the ability to have, we need to have the ability to have guns here, because now Ukraine is scrambling to get their citizens' guns for a military operation.

And so, see, we need to have the right to bear arms for that exact thing, for a military operation. That was his big example. And I remember when that happened in the first episode of this, I said, wow, that was pretty savage.

That was a great example, because every good Christian has to support Ukraine, right? I mean, that was a very shrewd example to use, because that was the issue du jour, that's the issue of the moment, and every Christian, no matter what the situation, has to defend Ukraine.

Of course, Ukraine is as pure as the driven snow in this situation. So that was very shrewd, because it was a great example to use for this debate, knowing your opponent supports Ukraine, and knowing your opponent is against the right to bear arms, you use that as the reason why we need the right to bear arms for military possible situations.

That was awesome. Okay, so now, this guy just got done hearing the guy who made that exact case talk and give him the entire debate, and saying, well, the Supreme Court decides which ones are weapons of war.

No, no, no. So he asks him the obvious question. This guy's smart. He jumps on it. He spilled blood in the water. In fact, the decorum of this whole debate has been breached right here. Right here, because if you notice, in any of these debates, there's very little crosstalk.

There's very little, let me interrupt you and ask you the kill shot question. There is some of that, but only for the progressive person. So he jumps in. He breaks the decorum of the debate, and he says, what about assault weapons?

Where do you put that on the line? And listen to this guy's answer. When I heard this, I could not believe it.

Side of the line, would you put assault weapons? I don't know.

I probably am ambivalent on that because I think that's one of the live debates in the American context is just, do those, I know people who use those for hunting. I know people who would say those are only meant for military use,.

And I think you can make a case. Okay, so here is what he just said. He said, I don't know where to put assault weapons. And that's just a euphemism for the AR -15. I don't know where to put the AR -15 because that's an open, I'm ambivalent about that.

That's the word he used, ambivalent. Now, I remember at the time, I looked up, just to make sure I knew what ambivalent meant when I recorded it earlier. Here's what ambivalent means, ready? Having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about something or someone.

And he says, I'm ambivalent. And I think what he means is I have contradictory ideas because on the one hand, I know people who hunt with an AR -15, which is not an ideal weapon for hunting. Let's just put it that way.

An AR -15, I know some people who hunt, but then on the other side, I know people who say it's just for military use and all of that. And look, you can hunt with an AR -15. It's not ideal, but it's really not for that.

That's not what an AR -15 is actually for. I'm open about that. I own an AR -15 and I'll be open about that's not an ideal hunting weapon. Okay, so he just said, I'm ambivalent about that. Now, keep in mind, one of the key points of his first case was Ukraine.

And he's telling us, he expects us to believe, guys. When I was shocked, he expects 80 Robles to watch this and believe him that he's ambivalent about this question. You see, here's the thing. Good faith debate, this is what Gospel Coalition is presenting to you.

This is a great picture of what good faith debate is to Gospel Coalition. This is perfect because every debate we've reviewed so far has contained this exact exchange. The liberal progressive side of the debate, which is this Brit with his legs crossed here, they get to push.

They get to push forward. They get to take ground. He's promoting pacifism. He's promoting, you don't have the right to self-defense, actually. He's promoting gun control. He gets to push his ideas forward and he gets to pretend that they're biblical.

He gets to push, he gets to push, he gets to push. He gets to break the decorum of the debate. He gets to interrupt you and ask a serious question. It's the same thing with that British lady. She did the same thing to that guy, Sean DeMars, right?

The progressive gets to push. The conservative has to timidly put his ideas forward and the minute there's any pressure whatsoever applied by the progressive, he has to pretend like, oh, I'm ambivalent about that.

He has to turn into a puddle of goo. If you're gonna be in a good faith debate, if you're liberal, have at it. Go at it. Maybe you don't use aggressive language too much, but you're allowed to and you're allowed to push your ideas forward.

If you're a conservative, if you wanna be a good faith, winsome debater, you can have ideas, but you can't defend them, really. You can't defend them too fiercely and when challenged directly by a brother in Christ who's progressive putting biblical ideas forward like pacifism, you must turn into a puddle of goo instantly.

Even if it contradicts everything you said when you were putting your ideas forward. You used Ukraine as the example. I don't think that that transsexual president of, I'm sorry, transvestite president of Ukraine wanted them to have guns so they can go hunting and get their food.

I don't think that's the point you were making. I don't believe you that you're ambivalent on this question. You have an opinion on this question, but you won't share it because that wouldn't be good faith to share your opinion.

No, assault weapons isn't a thing, dude. This is what he should have said. In a nice way, he could say it. Assault weapons isn't a thing. So let's just talk about AR -15. That's what you're referring to, right?

The AR -15. The AR -15 falls clearly on the side of what you should be able to own because the second amendment isn't about hunting, okay? It isn't about skeet shooting, the second amendment. It isn't about target practice.

The second amendment is about the exact kind of thing that is happening in Ukraine right now. That's what the second amendment is about. In fact, the second amendment is about something even more dangerous, which is your own government taking tyrannical methods and stuff like that.

A lot of the stuff that's happening in Australia right now, that's what the second amendment is about. You stop him in his tracks right there. No, that's no. Even if you believe falsely that the government should limit your access to an assault tank or an F -14 Tomcat or whatever, even if you believe that falsely, you have an opinion on assault weapons, dude.

Why are you lying? That's a lie, man. It's not good faith. It's not winsome to hide your real beliefs just so you could have some common ground, right? If somebody asks you a direct question, look, you don't have to be in their face.

You're in a debate, so obviously the rules for you are a little different. You should put your positions out there for all to see. You shouldn't try to hide your beliefs in a debate. That's what the debate is for.

I remember Ruslan tried to do this with me about his women pastors thing. He tried to hide it until I completely cornered him on it, and then he finally admitted it. When you're in a debate, you should be honest and open, but if you're just in a regular conversation, you don't have to tell us everything you believe right away.

Of course not. But you were asked a direct question on which you do have an opinion because you wouldn't have said what you said in your opening statement if you didn't have an opinion on this, and you pretended like you don't.

I'm ambivalent. I mean, I see it both ways. It's crazy, guys. Good faith, this is the vision of Gospel Coalition. If you're a good faith, winsome conservative, this is what their vision is for you. You must melt into a puddle of goo the instant a liberal puts pressure on you.

You have to make room, make space for liberals. Liberals don't have to give an inch, but you must give miles. That's the vision that Gospel Coalition has for good faith, winsome debates. Liberals don't have to give an inch.

You must give a mile. It's sick, guys. It's sick. People know that this is what Gospel Coalition is all about, but honestly, I don't think I've ever seen a more clear display of that. That's what Gospel Coalition is.

Everything they do is exactly this exchange. Make room for the liberal. Give them a mile. They don't have to give an inch. They don't play by the same rules that you do. They don't play by the same rules of decorum that you insist that the conservatives play by.

This is why you get people platformed that are aggressive and angry on Twitter, and they don't say a word. But when a conservative gets aggressive or angry on Twitter, oh, your tone, man. Your tone. Your tone is just too much.

And that's why you have that dichotomy there, because that is what Gospel Coalition is there for. It's there to slow roll and push the progressive agenda. Yeah, of course they have some conservatives.

So did MSNBC for a while. So did CNN for a while. Yeah, Fox News even had combs on Hannity and Combs. Fox News didn't have combs on there to give a fair shake. Obviously that was there to push the conservative message forward.

Look, whatever, you like Hannity, you like Combs. I'm not saying, but it's the same kind of idea with Gospel Coalition, except in reverse. The conservatives doesn't exist on MSNBC or CNN to give a fair shake.

They're there to give ground. That's what they're there for. And it's the same thing with Gospel Coalition.

Gun Control, Australia, and the Limits of Biblical Argument

Andrew, so there are many out there who would make the argument that gun restriction keeps the guns out of the hands of those who would use them responsibly, not out of the hands of those who would not.

How do you respond to that argument given where we are now?

Yeah, so I think this is why I spent so much time, so much more time talking about Australia than I did talking about the Bible.

No, no, that's not why though. That's not why. The reason you spent so much time talking about Australia as opposed to talking about the Bible is because the Bible definitively does not make the case that you made.

And so if you're going to make the case for gun control, you cannot talk about the Bible because you can't find it there. You can't find it there. And it's not like the Bible doesn't give us the role of the civil governing authority.

It does. It gives us what the role is. And it also gives us a lot of detail about how they're supposed to carry out that role. What's justice in multiple kinds of situations. The Bible gives us so much information that you can't use the Bible to make that case.

You have to use Australia. You have to use them as an example because that's all you got are examples like that.

Strange as that is in this context, because I think if I make the pacifist argument, I don't think it'll convince anybody and I'll just go, well, okay,.

Well, it's a moral conscious thing. It's not a moral conscious thing, it's not a moral, because the Bible actually does address it. See, this is the thing. And this is the progressive way, right? The progressive way, it's just make room for me.

I can't convince you, but just make room for me. And it's like, no, you can't. There's no room for pacifism in Christianity, none. The Bible doesn't make the case. It's not a moral conscious thing. If you want to not defend your own family from someone that seeks to hurt them, if you don't wanna defend yourself against someone who seeks to hurt you, that's your prerogative, you do you.

But the minute you start teaching it as if it's a biblical imperative, then we can't leave you alone. I'm sorry, it's not a moral conscious thing once you start to bind other people's conscience. If you wanna let your family get killed and hurt and murdered and raped and all that kind of stuff, that's on you and you're gonna have to answer to Christ for that one.

Don't start teaching it in the church as if it's a biblical command, it's not. The Bible is against what you're teaching.

The example of Australia to me is helpful because it's an example of a nation which has got enough culturally in common with the US and which did have assault weapons and doesn't now. And in which all of the results and outcomes I think we would want.

If what we're trying to do is to defend the innocent and that actually I think you could, this is why I distinguish between defense and violence, you see, is I think you would defend the innocent better by dramatically restricting what kinds of weapons can be used and how many people they can kill at once.

Even if in practice that sounded like you were taking away, I was taking away your right to defend yourself, I might actually defend you and your family better by imposing that law and by making it possible for people to give them back.

Now, there's a big public opinion, war to be won, they're an all, war, that's an inopportune choice of words. And also I know there's a lot of history and context in Britain, but I think it's not dissimilar from a lot of what happened in Australia.

And so that's why I just think that comparables, even within states of the US, as I said, let alone internationally, suggest that in the end, tighter gun restrictions are correlated to, and you could argue about the causality, but are correlated to lower gun deaths, not higher ones.

So although in principle it sounds like, oh, if you got a gun, I want one too to defend my family. Actually, if neither of us have guns or if I put mine down and you probably put yours down as well, there might be a few miscreants who still have them and that's tragic.

And of course they may abuse them and they have in Australia, it's not like no one's ever shot anyone ever since, and they do in Britain. But the overall effect to the nation is to significantly diminish not just gun deaths, but homicides in general.

And I think that's a very good outcome. So I just don't think it's borne out by the evidence of what's happened in developed nations when they've applied it. It's obviously is different in nations where the state is much weaker and less able to enforce and where poverty is more rife and so on.

But in Western nations, I think the comparables are encouraging for gun control.

It seems like that. Okay, so let's just stop right there. We're gonna let him talk in the next episode. We've already been at this for 30 minutes. But we don't actually have to respond to that because this is a case where we're Christians here, we're talking about what the Bible teaches and none of that had anything to do with what the Bible teaches.

But the thing is though, if you wanted to respond to that, if he thinks it's legitimate to decide what's the best thing to do, not according to what the scripture says, but according to what the results are, right?

That's what he's trying to say. He's saying, look, they introduced gun control and stuff like that and it had positive results. Okay, fine. If you wanna put that into evidence, fine. But we also, if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander, right?

What about all the nations who committed atrocities against their own people? Who at first, before they started doing the atrocities, before they started killing off their own people in droves, more than any kind of gang in Chicago could ever dream of, before they started doing that, they disarmed the people first.

They disarmed the people for their own good. Oh, your guns are bad, of course. And then they got to work filling the death camps with bodies, right? Because if you're gonna say, okay, well we can, look, the results here speak for themselves.

Okay, what about the other results, right? You see, I don't think that this guy even thinks that the government killing is something that even needs to be considered in this debate. Because honestly, I do think that functionally, a lot of these guys, they worship the state.

They worship the state. And look, the state does wrong, and he'll probably admit that the state does wrong sometimes, but when the state does it, it's of a different kind. It's like a different kind of wrong, maybe not as wrong as when an individual does it, right?

So like, the gangs in Chicago that are offing each other, that's really bad, we gotta squash that. But we don't really have to worry so much about the governments that come in and they kill and rob and cheat against an unarmed population.

Like, listen, the reality is this. If you're gonna use cases like that, like Australia or whatever, then we get to use China as an example. We get to use Nazi Germany as an example. We get to use any country that's disarmed their populace and then committed atrocities on a scale that would make anyone blush, anyone.