RUSH: But I want to, ladies and gentlemen, for the moment focus on the incident in Oregon involving guns. The president went out and spoke late Friday afternoon at the White House, had a press conference. During the Q&A, Jonathan Karl of ABC News said, “Back in July, Mr. President, you said that the gun issue has been the most frustrating of your presidency. We certainly heard that frustration from you last night. So in the last 15 months of your presidency, do you intend to do anything differently to get Congress to act or to do something about this gun violence problem?”
OBAMA: The people who are troubled by this have to be as intense and as organized and as adamant about this issue as folks on the other side who are absolutists and think that any gun safety measures are somehow an assault on freedom or communistic, or a plot by me to take over and stay in power forever or something. I mean, there are all kinds of crackpot conspiracy theories that float around there, some of which, by the way, are ratified by elected officials in the other party, on occasion.
RUSH: So the president of the United States finally addresses — I don’t know what you want to call it, the theory that one of the reasons he and other Democrats are so excited and so focused on removing guns from our culture is so that there could be no resistance should they ever decide to mount a coup and just stay in power? So he mentions that theory, sort of tries to laugh at it, accuses extremists of concocting the theory, and then says that even some elected officials in the other party on occasion talk about this.
Mr. President, let me see if I can help you here. It isn’t about any of that. If we wanted to take existing policy and, say, move it to other areas, we would proclaim immediately gun-free zones around banks, gun-free zones around official government installations in every city and state in this country, just like we have gun-free schools. My whole point has always been that in every area where the left has run the show or is running the show and in those places where they have implemented stringent gun laws, most stringent gun laws in the country, what is actually happening?
Gun violence is out of control in places like New York City, in Chicago, really Chicago, Washington, DC, you name it. Wherever liberals run these cities and have implemented these gun laws, what has happened is the only people that don’t have them are victims. They have put into play, they have implemented their utopia gun control measures in all of these places, and what’s been the result? The result is an increase in gun related crime. And it only stands to reason.
You have to acknowledge that there are mentally ill people and evil people, criminally oriented people who are not blind and are not deaf. When they see that a school is a gun-free zone and not even the security guards are armed, when they see that places like New York and Washington and Chicago have the most stringent gun controls in the country, what do they know? They know that there will be as little resistance possible to any action they want to take of a criminal nature with their gun. This is just common sense.
Every school in this country already has a utopian gun control policy that the left dreams of. You can’t get any better than no guns allowed. There’s nothing more than that you can do. No guns allowed at this particular place and a perimeter of whatever distance you proclaim. And the law-abiding will abide by that law, and they do. There aren’t any guns in those particular places. The liberal dream has come true all over the country, and yet where do all these gun crimes happen, these mass shootings? They happen in theaters. They happen in schools. They happen in places where the perpetrators happen to know there won’t be anybody firing back.
So what I want to know is, if your dream is in place, and it is failing gloriously, it is failing superbly and supremely, what is it that recommends you to do it even more all over the country? It is very curious for us on the right to listen to people on the left talk about this. One of the greatest political divides in the country occurs over this issue, and to all of us it’s just simple common sense. By definition, the law-abiding are not committing gun crimes. The law-abiding have access to guns legally. They do not go out and buy guns and then commit crimes with them. They are always the victims. I mean, people go bad on a random basis, but we all know what I’m talking about here. We already have gun control.
Now, I know what some of you are saying. “Mr. Limbaugh, that’s not entirely correct, because we haven’t gotten rid of guns. We’ve just told people they can’t use ’em in certain places, Mr. Limbaugh, but we still got the guns. We need to get rid of the guns, sir. We need to get rid of every gun in the country.” And you still think getting rid of every gun — I thought we couldn’t deport every illegal in the country? Too massive, there’s too many of them, and you want to tell me now you think you can get rid of all the guns?
Okay, let’s just presume for a moment that you can accomplish the impossible and you could wave your magic wand and you could get rid of every gun in this country. You think gun crime is gonna stop? It isn’t gonna stop at all. Guns are gonna be available to the people that want them just like every other thing that’s illegal is available to people that want them. Look at drugs. Take your pick. We’ve outlawed who knows what and whatever it is we’ve outlawed is still plentiful, can still be found. If you have the resources, if you have the creativity, if you have the desire, you can find whatever it is you want. So clearly this isn’t the answer.
So then we ask, well, then what is your purpose? If you’re not gonna looking at common sense, if you’re not gonna admit that the problem — one of the analogies that’s making the rounds — where did I hear this? Oh, it was Pete Hamill, the old writer and columnist, author in New York. In trying to make the case that getting rid of guns would solve all these problems. How did Babe Ruth hit all those home runs? He needed a bat, right? He couldn’t hit those home runs without the bat. Oh, okay, so without the gun, the criminal can’t commit the crime? Well, a gun can’t be fired if there’s no gun, true, and just like if there’s no bat, nobody could hit a home run. So we’re gonna compare a baseball bat now to a gun and hitting a home run to pulling the trigger? But still I get the analogy, and it’s a clever analogy, and it’s designed to, “Yeah, you know what, that, yeah, I haven’t thought of it that way, makes a lot of sense,” but it’s all in denial of common sense. ‘Cause the objective that the left seeks here is not possible, and it wouldn’t solve the problem.
Meanwhile, the problem that exists is one they won’t even recognize or acknowledge, and that is mental illness, criminal intent. I mean, we’re in the process in this country of making cult heroes out of people who suffer really grave public mental illnesses. I talked last week about the woman who knew, just knew she was supposed to be disabled. She wasn’t supposed to be able to see. She knew she was born to be blind. And so she got some help, she found a doctor. After consulting with a psychology teacher at Columbia University, she found a doctor that aided her in pouring Drano in her eyes. The story that reported this made it seem like it’s as ordinary and common, nothing to see here, nothing odd about this at all, now this woman’s finally realized her dream.
If we’re not going to deal with problems like that honestly assessing them, that’s mental illness, that woman needs lot of compassion. That woman needs a lot of help. She does not need to go blind, for crying out loud. And there’s some name for it, body integrity identity disorder or body identity integrity disorder, but it is just an example.
The fact of the matter is, we have gun control everywhere that the left runs the show and what we don’t have is an absence or even reduction in gun crime. So I want to know: Why do they have any credibility on the issue? The New York Daily News editorialized in their Sunday edition… By the way, this is a newspaper that was just put up for sale and somebody offered a dollar for it. This is a newspaper, the New York Daily News, that, in order to stay afloat, may only publish an actual paper three days a week (maybe four if they publish on Sunday).
I mean, they’re in deep doo-doo. They’re in huge trouble — advertising, staff layoffs, you would name it. You think there might be a reason for that? The New York Daily News has demanded that the State Department designate the NRA a terrorist organization. By the way, this shooter in Oregon happened to be half black, and yet they’re calling him “a white supremacist.” This is like what they did with the shooter — the name escapes me at the moment — in the Trayvon Martin case? Yeah, George Zimmerman, is a “white Hispanic”?
So here you have a half black shooter in Oregon, and a number of publications have doctored/Photoshopped his face to make him look white, when he’s not. He doesn’t look white. It’s obvious he’s half black. But they couldn’t call him a “white supremacist,” which they’re doing, if they published an accurate picture. So that shooting takes place; everybody now is throwing their hands up. It happened to be a liberal utopia! It happened to be a gun-free zone. I mean, you’d have a tough time finding three words to make any liberal happier: “gun-free zone.” That’s almost worth an orgasm. Except they’re not gun free, are they?
And none of this… So, Mr. President, this is why… Since common sense here is not part of your plan to deal with this, this is why people start questioning you and others on the left and your motives.
RUSH: Donald Trump was in Franklin, Tennessee, on Saturday and weighed in on gun control and how he deals with it.
TRUMP: The Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. We need that!
TRUMP: Like, I have a license to carry in New York. Can you believe that? Nobody knows that.
AUDICENCE: (cheering and laugher)
TRUMP: Somebody attacks me? Oh, they’re gonna shocked! Can you imagine? Somebody says, “Oh, there’s Trump. He’s easy pickings. (finger points gun) What’d you say?
RUSH: And he made a sign with a gun. He made a finger gun motion there, which can get kids kicked out of school today. You pretend your hand is a gun, go, “Bang-bang,” and they call your parents and they send you home and they punish you, and it mars your record for whatever. You bring a water gun to school, same thing will happen to you. So here’s Trump admitting that he has a concealed carry permit, that nobody knows that. I think it’s a good thing people know that now!
A concealed carry permit, if you think one’s necessary — and by the way, they’re not easy to get. I know a lot of people in New York who have them, and it’s quite an involved process. But once you have one, one of the values in it is having people know that you do because that, in itself, is its own deterrent. What does that say, by the way? The fact that you have a concealed carry permit and you don’t mind if people know? That’s the deterrent. Folks, it’s no different than suppose we wanted to solve war by banning all armaments and weapons.
Look at it that way. We all hate war, right? We hate the killing. We hate all the reasons for war. Just like we hate it when school kids get show the up or anybody else does. Okay, so imagine some enlightened liberal comes along and says, “The solution to this is getting rid of the Armed Forces. We’re still gonna have forces, but they’re not gonna be armed. No guns and no bullets, because then nobody will die! Then nobody will get killed and then nobody will kill.” Is it realistic? Well, this is pre-Obama. We’re not doing any of this stuff under Obama.
But I remember the debate — and it was vicious — over the funding, I think it was the B-2 bomber. And a bunch of liberals are running around saying, “Wa wa wa wa wa wa why do we need to spend so much, 35 or $40 billion? Why do we need to spend so much on a plane?” Again, all the arguments about why we should suspend the space program because there are starving people on earth. “We don’t need to be spending this much money on planes. They may never be used.” I said, “That’s the point. It’s called deterrence. We build the stealth bomber…”
Oh, I’ll never forget. When I told a liberal this, a caller, you could hear this guy on the phone having a fit. When I told him, “Yeah, you know why we’re building it?” “Why, Mr. Limbaugh? Why? So, we hope, we never have to use it.” And he just thought that was the stupidest thing he ever heard. “You mean you’re going to build a whole fleet of B-2 bombers and hope you never have to use them?” “Exactly.” “Well, why build ’em in the first place?”
“Because the fact that we’ve got ’em and that everybody knows we’ve got ’em — and the same thing with everything else in our arsenal — tells everybody else in the world not to mess with us. It’s called safety. It’s called defending and protecting the people of the United States of America, and you don’t do that by disarming. You’re not gonna convince your enemies to disarm by disarming yourself. It’s not that kind of world. This is a world governed by the aggressive use of force. Crime is governed by the aggressive use of force, not good vibes, entreaties and so forth.
RUSH: I mean, after all, you know, Obama halfway got it right. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to prevent someone taking control of this country outside our electoral system. It’s exactly what it was for. Here he is laughing at it, mocking, making fun of it. But that’s precisely one of the reasons for number two.
Hang in there is, folks. Coming right back.
RUSH: Now, this next on gun control, this is what the left uses to suggest that we’re not doing enough. They love to point out that all of these perps such as this kid Mercer, this young man Mercer that blew up the school in Oregon, “Yeah, he got his guns legally, Mr. Limbaugh, got his guns legally, so see, the system isn’t working.”
“The Los Angeles Times reports that after searching Umpqua Community College (UCC), Oregon and Chris Harper Mercer’s residence law enforcement officials recovered a total of 13 firearms belonging to Mercer — all of which were purchased ‘legally.'” They have “legally” there in quotes.
“According to the Times, law enforcement officials found six guns were at UCC and seven more at Mercer’s apartment. As we have seen numerous times before, a report that the guns were purchased ‘legally’ means the purchases included passing a background check. This makes Mercer just one more public attacker who cooperated fully with all gun control, then went on to commit heinous crimes against innocent life.”
Now, the left will use this and say that we don’t have strict enough control. What they are denying here — all these background checks, he went through the process, the kid had 13 guns, what does it tell you about his intent here? The problem that we’re having with this is that we are refusing to profile people. I’ll tell you, that is getting us into more trouble as a culture and society than you would believe. We’re refusing to identity people for and who they really are, because it’s discriminatory or it’s unfair or it violates human rights or whatever, but all of this is right out in front of us.
Everything we need to know to be able to deduce someone’s intent is right in front of us. And people want to sit here in utter denial and continue to blame — I mean, there are more gun control laws in this country than people want to admit. They always tell us that we’re nothing, we don’t do anything compared to the gun control laws they have in Europe and so forth. We’ve gone out of the way here to make the purchase of guns in a lot of cases, you know, it’s not just something you can just walk off the street and get in most cases. Thirteen different guns here. And what are we finding? The common sense conclusion here, all of these gun laws do not stop crazed murderers from murdering.
So would somebody tell me, what evidence do you have that more gun control is going to achieve the purpose? If this kid, this guy had 13 different guns, I guarantee you he would have found a way to get one if it was impossible to get these 13. When we have stringent gun control laws already on the books, and they’re not stopping crazed murderers, maybe the gun laws are not the problem.
But I find this to be very contradictory for people on the left, because on the one hand, they want all of these laws. They want as many laws as they can get when it comes to guns. They want punitive laws. They want discriminatory laws. They want laws of mass denial, but when the subject turns to immigration and illegal immigrants, they don’t want any law at all. And if there is any law, it deserves to be ignored and swept aside and pretended that it’s not there. Or the law is criticized as discriminatory and unfair and all of these other insults to people.
They’re very selective in how they use the law. When the Constitution is involved and Obama doesn’t want to pay attention to it, that’s fine. He has a higher calling. He has a higher purpose. But when it comes to gun laws, they have succeeded in achieving all kinds of control over guns with these background checks, you name it, and yet the bottom line here is that in Chicago, in Detroit, in Baltimore, in Washington, DC, at every school where there’s been a shooting, there hasn’t been a single problem whatsoever for the perp to be able to commit the crime, despite laws that you can’t even contemplate that are on the books.
There isn’t a law out there that stops behavior. People still rob banks, they still commit murder, they still run red lights, they still steal. The law is a societal marker for right and wrong and good and bad, good and evil, and it establishes a standard for punishment and so forth, and in some cases it can deter marginal people, and if it has deterrent capabilities, all the better, but it’s not the primary reason why you have laws, deterring the behavior.
The law is an acknowledgement the behavior is gonna happen. The law deals with what happens when somebody breaks it. The law exists because society as a whole has deemed this or that to be right or wrong, moral or immoral, good or bad, harmful or not. It’s how we lay down our markers. And they just want to keep piling law on law on law except when it comes to immigration or anything else that’s beneficiary to the Democrat Party. But clearly, folks, it just has no impact.
Here’s another stat, and this is from the same writer, AWR Hawkins. “Ninety-two percent of mass shootings since 2009 have occurred in gun-free zones.” Ninety-two percent. The schools are not being chosen randomly. They’re not chosen just because there’s a collection of kids that make good targets or students there. They’re chosen because there’s not gonna be any resistance. And what is it that shuts down every one of these sprees when they start? It’s the arrival on scene of somebody else with a gun, not somebody waving a law and a piece of paper. Not somebody on a megaphone, “You are breaking gun law! You are violating gun law. We command you to stop.”
What you hear next is bang-bang a couple more times. There aren’t any shooters on site because it’s a gun-free zone. The law-abiding, of course, obey the law, and they don’t have any guns, not even the security people. Ninety-two percent of mass shootings since 2009 occurred in gun-free zones.
Now, let’s go to the father, Ian Mercer, late Saturday afternoon on CNN. This is also what happens, bring out the parents either of victims or the parents of the shooter, and they join the chorus of “the guns are the problem.” It’s hard not to feel bad for these people. It’s difficult not to have compassion for the parents of this shooter or the parents of people that he killed. It is thought that they are much closer to the situation since they have personal involvement. And for that reason alone we’re supposed to listen to them.
Simply because they have something personal attached to the shooter or one of the victims, that makes them much more qualified than anybody else to render an opinion on this that must be followed, because they themselves are victims, and we feel sorry for victims, and therefore we’re gonna go out of our way to make the victims feel good. So whatever the victims want is what we claim that we are going to be for, whether it makes sense or not.
This is the technique that CNN and all the other networks employed starting Saturday afternoon. He was interviewed by CNN national correspondent, Ryan Young. Ian Mercer, father of the Oregon community college shooter. Remember, the shooter is half black and half white, and yet he’s being called a white supremacist. He identified as black. So the CNN reporter says, “You told me before that you didn’t want to talk too much about your son obviously because you’re going through so much pain, but you also realize people are going to remember him differently now forever.”
MERCER: How on earth could he compile 13 guns? How can that happen, you know? You talk about gun laws. You talk about gun control. Every time something like this happens, you talk about it, and nothing is done. I’m not trying to say that that’s to blame for what happened, but if Chris had not been able to get a hold of 13 guns, it wouldn’t have happened.
RUSH: All he would have needed is one. But, see, this is the point. There isn’t a law on the books that’s gonna deny this guy the right to get a gun. There’s not a series of laws that you could write or that are on the books now that would stop him from getting a gun. And they know that. That’s why they say we gotta get rid of the guns. We have to get rid of the guns. This is a trick every time. We have to get rid of the guns.
He would have still gotten one because of his intent. There isn’t a single thing that’s outlawed in this country that you can’t get. It’s silly and absurd. His question, “How on earth could he compile 13 guns?” Why did he want to, is the question, and why didn’t anybody notice. Why did he want 13 guns? Doesn’t that kind of give you a tip that something’s awry here?
Next question to Mr. Mercer. “It’s a very powerful statement…” See this? “It’s a very powerful statement coming from you, Mr. Father of the Shooter.” Therefore, he’s the victim. We feel our hearts go out to the guy, so he offers his opinion. “Wow, that’s very powerful.” He’s considered to have knowledge that we don’t. He’s considered to have wisdom that we don’t, because he’s the father. And since it is assumed he’s got wisdom we don’t, we must listen. So the question’s “a very powerful statement coming from you. So now I have to ask you: How did he get the 13 guns?” That’s where everyone’s gonna want to go.
MERCER: Look all over the world. You don’t see these kind of mass shootings all over the world on a consistent basis like you do in the United States. So somebody has to ask the question: How is it so easy to get all these guns? I’ve never held a gun in my life.
YOUNG: Did you know he had 13 guns?
MERCER: I had no idea he had any guns. I had no idea that he had any gun whatsoever. And I’m a great believer that you don’t buy guns, don’t buy guns. You don’t buy guns.
RUSH: This is another old saw that is also not true. “Look all over the world. You don’t see these things mass shootings all over…” You most certainly do. You see them all over the place. You see them in France. You see them in Great Britain. You see them everywhere. There are mass shootings, there’s mass murderer, there’s mass crime all over the world. There always has been. This is another straw dog that gets thrown up there. But somehow, it’s worse here. Everywhere else is much more enlightened than we are.
There is an all-out war that’s been declared on Christians all over the world, and nobody wants to talk about it, and it’s not just ISIS. It’s happening all over the world, and nobody wants to mention that. Nobody does mention that. Obama does take the occasion… Every opportunity he has to forgo it, he does. So he didn’t know that his own son had 13 guns, but because he did, it must mean it’s really easy to get them. But still nobody knows why he wanted them. Well, we do now. That’s the real question: Why’d the guy want 13 guns?
What is it that’s inspiring this guy? That’s it for that, or for this, but it’s an ongoing circumstance. And the left isn’t gonna get rid of it. I just want to reiterate one thing, that Obama went out there whenever he talked about this, Friday night, and he started joking about the fact, “Yeah, there’s all these crackpots out there saying I want to take guns from everybody so I can basically stay in power without any opposition!” He doesn’t know how close he is being right in terms of why number two exists.
There are many reasons for the Second Amendment, but one of the reasons is to make sure that people cannot take control of our country and government outside of our electoral system. Make no mistake about that. That’s not a paranoid thing to say. It’s not a tinfoil hat thing to say. You go back to when the Constitution was written and the Bill of Rights was written and take a look at human condition at that time. Nobody had any freedom, nobody had any liberty of the kind they were creating for people that were going to live and did live at the time in America.
Military coups and assassinations and armed takeovers of regimes were common all over the world. And they still are, for crying out loud. Founders wrote the Second Amendment to ensure that something like that could not easily happen here, pure and simple. They very much believed in what they were creating. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the United States of America. They had sworn their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor to this. They knew exactly what they were doing. They knew what the human condition was at the time they were writing founding documents and assembling this country.
They knew how fragile, in other words, governments can be, and they knew that it was not very difficult to imagine that people would want to overthrow this new country and overthrow this new government because it was considered to be so radical, which it was at the time. It wasn’t odd at all to imagine that somebody, some group could try to take over this country outside the electoral process, which they will labored and labored over creating and inventing. And so the Second Amendment was created for a host of reasons, among them, to make sure that somebody, some group could not take control of this country outside our election process. It’s not hard.
RUSH: Just a couple of more things. The shooter’s father, Ian Mercer, has not seen his son since he moved to Oregon. And his mother, who is a nurse, said that her son was mentally ill. Have you heard the term “nut control,” as opposed to gun control? Have you heard that term? (interruption) You haven’t heard that term nut…? (interruption) You have now, right? Anybody want to think of perhaps a program rooted in that premise, nut control?
RUSH: here’s Jack in Santa Maria, California. Hey, Jack.
CALLER: Greetings, Rush. Lifetime listener. I started listening to you back in 1988 when you first went national, and my wife and I were privileged enough to go on the Rush to Excellence Tour —
RUSH: You were there? That was the very first one in Santa Maria, California. It was the very first one.
CALLER: Yeah, a friend of mine’s sponsor was one of the sponsors, so I had the opportunity to sit down and speak with you for a couple minutes, and then went on the cruise you had to the Caribbean. It was exciting. It was my first cruise, so my wife got her way. She’s always wanted to go on a cruise, and I said, “Well, Rush is having a cruise,” and we went.
RUSH: See? This is… Folks, if you ever hear me talk about how much I appreciate the audience and this bond here? This man has been since day one. We’re in the 28th year, and he’s been every day, for the most part. (interruption) Oh, no, no. I don’t do the cruises anymore. That was the early days. I could do a… I don’t do those kinds of things anymore. They were Rush to Excellence cruises to the Panama Canal, all over the place. So, anyway, Jack, I really appreciate that. That’s terrific.
CALLER: Well, it’s really cool. I go walking every day for exercise, and I’ve lost 30 pounds in a year, and I hope you’ve lost some weight, too, because I’ve been walking and you’ve been walking with me every day.
RUSH: Well, thank you. By osmosis. There we go.
CALLER: There you go, and that’s why I called today. I was out walking and I heard you talking about the shooter up in Oregon. I won’t use his name because, you know, he doesn’t deserve that recognition. But you had mentioned something about, in the conversation you were talking about the fact that he passed all the background checks, that he owned 13 guns and maybe somebody should have noticed that, you know, he was screwed up or is mentally nuts or whatever, and you mentioned… You said something to the effect of that, you know, they should have profiled him because he owns 13 guns. That scared the heck out of me. I almost ran home to get to the phone because I’ve owned guns my whole life. I’ve got way more than 13 guns. I’m a law-abiding citizen, and I would really hope that I misheard you or that you wouldn’t be advocating that because somebody owns a lot of guns that they should be profiled.
RUSH: No, no. I know how that came out, though. This is one of those instances where I’m not verbalizing or voicing every thought in my head it pet. But it was based on the fact… We can profile nuts, and we don’t. We can profile the mentally ill, but we don’t. But I did not mean that possession of multiple guns is an automatic red flag. I did not mean that at all. I just… With everything we now know about this guy, my point is a lot of it could have been known before he pulled the trigger.
CALLER: I don’t disagree at all. I think, you know, that there are people out there, you know, that shouldn’t have guns. And maybe we ought to be training the gun salespeople to recognize people that are kind of strange or that are not all there —
RUSH: Well, I don’t know if you want to put the onus on them. I mean, how do they know? They’re not trained to spot this kind of thing. You can’t do it on looks alone. It’s a tough thing. I mean, it’s a really challenging thing, but one thing we know? We’re not gonna be able to get rid of all guns, and we have gotten rid of all guns at schools and movie theaters, and that’s where the crimes happen. So we know getting rid of guns does not work; it’s not the answer. It has to be focused on the people that are doing this, and my only point is that there are experts somewhere. We could have identified this guy, I’m confident.
CALLER: I’m also —
RUSH: Maybe not for this particular crime, but as a… I know we’re on the edge of it abyss here talking about this kind of profiling. But if we’re seriously talking about this, these are the things that we haven’t tried that I think we should.
CALLER: Yeah, we —
RUSH: Look, Jack, look, I’m running out of time here, and if there’s anybody in this audience deserves an iPhone, it’s you. And I’d like to offer you one. It’s 28 years; he’s been there every day. If you’d like an iPhone, I’d be honored to send you one, if something like that would please you.
CALLER: Okay. I’m an Android guy myself. I’ve never had an iPhone, but I’m sorry I can find somebody —
RUSH: Well, how about an iPad?
CALLER: Okay. That would be good.
RUSH: Snerdley, get his address and so forth, and I’ll find an iPad Air 2. I’ve got one in there. I’ll fire that out to you. Android. Oh.
RUSH: Here’s Mike in Cordelia, California. Welcome, sir. Appreciate your patience. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hi.
CALLER: Thank you, Rush. And mega Second Amendment dittos.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: During the president’s statement on Friday —
CALLER: — after the shootings in Oregon, he declared that he could not do anything by himself, that he needed the support of Congress and the people.
CALLER: And I seem to remember hearing that statement a couple of dozen times about immigration.
RUSH: Yeah, exactly right. He thinks he’s not a dictator, the Constitution stops him and he can’t do them, then he proceeds to do them.
CALLER: Well, my question to you would be, do you believe that statement? Do you think he will stand by and wait for Congress or anybody else?
RUSH: Oh, hell, no. Those kinds of statements are just intended for the low-information crowd to make them think that he’s abiding by the Constitution, not overstepping his bounds while he goes out and does it.
CALLER: Absolutely agreed. The gentleman who wrote the article about Babe Ruth needing a bat to hit all the home runs.
RUSH: Pete Hamill.
CALLER: The bat needs Babe as much as Babe needs the bat. Without Ruth, the bat —
RUSH: Look, it’s one of these analogies that when you first hear it you go, “Wow, yeah, man, really right on, dude, Babe Ruth couldn’t hit those home runs without the bat.” And you’re supposed to think and so-and-so couldn’t have killed any kids without the gun. But I never heard anybody want to ban bats.