it s a simple question. should the government ever take the firearms of americans who have not misused them? the only person in public life that has talked about that is donald trump. famously with that bipartisan group in the white house where he said seize the guns first. due process later. the only person that i think any of us has ever heard of who has a vote that counts, he is the only one who has discussed that. tucker: he doesn t have a vote. he is the executive. h i couldn t disagree with that more. my question is not about trump.o it s about the left, which is likely to take over congress, which says it wants to impose common sense gun control in the country. i just want to know as a citizen what does it mean exactly? will the government will be should it ever be allowed to take guns away from people who haven t violated the law? i don t think anyone is suggesting who has a vote in congress any sort of
votes or influences our politics by this standard? there are so many people that we are sad that vote, right? but i mean, unfortunately webu don t have people voting that should be voting. we only have 59 percent turnout voting right now. so people who do contribute and are great people and contributing should be allowed to you vote so,al more good guys voting. tucker: give up on the russian collusion narrative it was dumb from the beginning and now i feel good about it because you know what? they are just transitory americans, undocumentedra americans.s. which i love. oh, no, no, no. tucker: cathy, great to see you. great to see you. tucker: the left says it wants a national conversation on guns which is, of course, a lie. they want you to be quiet soso they can impose their womenn their will on you. let s say they did want an honest conversation. t why wouldn t they honestly state whether they want guns seized from law abiding
in an honest answer that he is an extremist. he is a radical. he espoused that theory in college and on the streets of chicago. and so we re looking at extremism and then incompetence. we got them both smack dab together in the fompl of this administration. this gets back to the republican saying it s a defense of liberty. extremism came from the republican party. it has from the days of john birrchard. it isn t that extreme. is it extreme when they say i want a constitutional amendment to make everyone who is voting on these laws to be bound. is that extreme? to change the constitution of the united states to do that? if you want it so much, the rest of you guys voting, you live by it too. okay. let s where they get free lunches so we have to get into all that.
in an honest answer that he is an extremist. he is a radical. he espoused that theory in college and on the streets of chicago. and so we re looking at extremism and then incompetence. we got them both smack dab together in the fompl of this administration. this gets back to the republican saying it s a defense of liberty. extremism came from the republican party. it has from the days of john birrchard. it isn t that extreme. is it extreme when they say i want a constitutional amendment to make everyone who is voting on these laws to be bound. is that extreme? to change the constitution of the united states to do that? if you want it so much, the rest of you guys voting, you live by it too. okay. let s where they get free lunches so we have to get into all that.
district opposition of their conscience, and teachings of their faith are forced to do something that they don t believe in. that is going against their freedom of religion like taking $486.4 million in grants and what about the first amendment freedom from religion? people go to work for catholic charities. no one and and there is not the way it works. it s logic. this is the do not believe this is the war against women? you don t understand the violence against women is in the womb? these guys voting in favor of the violence against women act split around and are in favor of it. it s outrageous. a lot of the people voted