A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep in their arms shall not be infringed.

This is the Second Amendment, and this is the gun Guy boom boom boom.

Boom bang bang bang bang boom boom boom boom bang bang boy.

With Guy Ralford on ninety three w YBC.

And good afternoon, and welcome to the Gun Guys show here on ninety three WYBC.

And thrill that you're with us.

First of all, some happy news and that is that I really enjoyed.

I really want to thank the Salvation Army of Central Indiana who put on their clays for a cause fundraiser here just day before yesterday out at Indiana Gun Club.

And listen, I brag on Indiana Gun Club.

They certainly have done advertising with me, so take that for what it's worth.

I love shooting sporting clays out there.

That's where I learned how to shoot sporting clays really only a few years ago.

It's just a great facility with great people and Salvation Army and WIBC obviously have a long and productive history where WIBC does the radiothon every year and I've done segments on radiothon before, and every year it seems like WIBC raises more money and sets more records raising money for Salvation Army of Central Indiana, and I'm a big fan of that organization.

You know, there are a lot of charitable organizations out there that become a bit questionable in terms of how much of the money they take in that actually ends up getting delivered to the intended beneficiaries of that charity.

In other words, most charities that that report publicly will release may you may have to do some math, but they'll release a percentage in terms of percentage of contributions total gross contributions that end up actually being distributed to beneficiaries as opposed to salaries and other administrative costs, et cetera, et cetera.

And some of them I won't name names, but I've been turned off of some national even organizations to support veterans and disabled veterans, and you look at some of the percentages and it was very low in terms of the amount of money that was actually being distributed to disabled veterans.

And listen that that always bears research Salvation Army.

That percentage is always very very very high in terms of the money they actually go out and distribute to the needy, the underprivileged, abused here right here in Central Indiana.

And that's what's nice too.

When you contribute to Central Indiana Salvation Army, that money stays in Central Indiana, and I think that's both comforting and rewarding to people who contribute to the organization.

But all that went into my decision to participate in and actually form a team to shoot in the clays for a cause, a fundraiser here this week out at Indiana Gun Club, put on by Central Indiana Salvation Army.

And listen, it was a great event.

We lived with some good weather.

It's a little bit warm, but not bad at all, and it was full.

They had more teams than there are stations out there, so that went great and it was smoothly run.

Gordon Gamilla, who we've had here on the show, who's the events coordinator out at Indiana Gun Club.

He puts on a hell of an event.

He's also a health a chef as I've talked about here on the show, and man, we had about as good a barbecue lunch after the shoot was over as you can imagine, and it's always a lot of fun, and I was also happy.

I'll brag here a little bit.

I hate to brag on the radio.

We have too many other people who do too much of that, but I'll brag a little bit, and that is the team I was on actually one top team honors out there.

I was not the top shooter on my team, so I cannot brag that much.

In fact, I may have been, oh say, maybe toward the low end of the people who were on my team.

I was shooting with three master level shooters and there was no there was no coincidence to who I put together on my team.

I will fully admit as well, but it was just a lot of fun and thanks.

I'll name them.

Jim Dunn and Brad Mendenhall and and and Jim McNutt are the three guys that were on my team, and they're all master level sporting clay shooters and did a hell of a job.

In fact, Jim got top shoot and Jim McNutt got number two overall.

And then I was able to hopefully not force the well not hopefully and in fact not force the scores down too low to fall out of the top spot, but it was a lot of fun.

Hit a lot of clays, missed a few I should have hit, but had a lot of fun all through the afternoon.

The rewards ceremony was fun, but thanks to everybody came out and contributed.

If that's something that sounds like it's fun for you, it sounds like it would be fun to you, Hey, come out.

I'll have it again next year.

I will definitely be out there.

Great cause and the money all by the way, all went to and I had major mark from Salvation Army on the show here a couple of weeks ago, and he talked about all this.

But the money goes to sending underprivileged and at risk children youth to the Salvation Army Hidden Falls Camp, which is down at Lawrence County down by Bedford.

And it's a great a great camp.

I've seen.

I've looked into it.

I've seen a lot of good information on it, and a lot of kids go down there and have great experiences and it's potentially a life changing experience for a lot of these kids.

So it's all worth doing.

Hey, let's get into maybe somewhat less happy news, and I want to talk as a lot of us have about the assassination, the political assassination.

Let's call it what it was of Charlie Kirk, the founder and the leader of Turning Point USA.

And listen what I know of Charlie Kirk here historically, I've really gotten just from watching snippets of videos.

And I don't have TikTok.

I refuse to put TikTok on my phone, but a lot of times the same videos come up on my Facebook as a function there called reels.

And I've obviously watched enough Charlie Kirk videos that come up on reels that they would continue to come up very consistently, and I always and I've been watching those now for a while.

And so many things struck me about Charlie.

And I did not sub subscribe to his podcast, so I can't claim to be the biggest and most loyal fan of his, but some things that really struck me about him.

First of all, obviously he had an unwavering support for the Second Amendment, but that just is consistent with the fact that he had an unwavering support for this country and the Constitution, the beautiful document that created this country.

And he also obviously was a devout Christian and had given his life to Jesus Christ.

And I loved all those things about him and really enjoyed watching all of his videos.

But within all of that and something that I completely respected and noted for its difference from so many political commentators out there on either side of the aisle.

I don't care, liberal, conservative, Christian, atheist, whoever you might be.

What was beautiful about Charlie Kirk and his approach to delivering his message was that he just took on all comers.

And if you remember it again, I'm just basing this off exposure to his videos or even snippets from his videos that would show up as reels and that I watched.

Is it started off remember that Changed my Mind?

Videos he released, he'd be sitting at a table and had on a public street somewhere, and then a lot of it became on college campuses and he'd be sitting at a table and there'd be some statement.

In fact, this turned into a meme where people could go on and sort of bastardize this to turn it into whatever they wanted to.

But you know, he would just have some statement that was clearly an unpopular statement, and he'd say, change my mind, and then people would start gathering, and people be booing and hissing and disagreeing, and he would hand the microphones and he would give them an opportunity to change his mind, exactly as the sign suggested.

And then that morphed and grew into it.

Then now for a few years and going to college campuses, and I got to believe Utah Valley where his horrific assassination occurred.

I got to believe as a relatively small school, but he would go to schools of all sizes.

In fact, he was scheduled to go to IU here in a couple of weeks and set up on stage, and the whole thing was designed for him to make some comments and then have an open microphone.

And this is the part that was so impressive to me, And I really watched this with so much interest and so much admiration, because he would express his views and no uncertain terms.

He didn't equivocate.

He'd tell you exactly how he felt.

But if you disagreed with him, he gave you a forum.

He didn't just give you a form.

He gave you a microphone on camera and every opportunity to express to him exactly why you disagreed again.

That started this changed my mind and then it was just hey, come on up and tell me why you disagree.

And what was so powerful as part of that is the people would throw all the labels out there.

I mean, if you're a conservative, you've been accused of all these things too.

Hell have you just voted Republican in the last election or two, You've been labeled many of these same things.

But is as much of an advocate and as open and as vocal as Charlie Kirk was got it just painful to even put that in the past tense.

I mean, all the words, all the labels, fascist, nazi, racist, homophobe, transphobe.

I was watching one and somebody called him.

Somebody called him a transphobe.

He was talking about how he just believed there were two sexes.

There are two genders.

Sorry, your male or your female, or you're mentally ill was the bottom line.

Uh, And he'd be gone, there, well, you're just a transphobe.

But it was so funny because, as Charlie would often say, he didn't go to college, he was not formally educated.

But the guy was so well read and so self educated, and people know he'd ask some college, dude, Well, what's your major?

I'm an English major.

I'm an econ major.

And he would ask them some detailed but relevant questions specific to their discipline and their or their major, and they couldn't answer it, and he would proceed to explain it to them.

But while he was getting named all these names, and again, once he was called it was called the transphobe, and he looked his person he said, well, phobe suffex means fear.

And if you're telling me I'm afraid of people who disagree with the gender that God assigned them, I can tell you that I'm not at all afraid of that.

So by definition, that term doesn't apply.

But here's why I believe there are two genders.

And he proceeded to explain it in very rational, calm terms, with a smile on his face.

And none of it was hateful.

I mean, that's all the crap I keep seeing out there.

Oh.

He he fostered hate and communicated hate and and and fear and and and all the and and and what was beautiful is that all the people that would step up to his microphone his microphone were given the opportunity if they believe in those things he's a fascist, he's a Nazi, he's a racist.

He would invite them up and they could express that and support that argument in whatever way they deemed appropriate, with an open microphone and and no censorship.

In fact, he would say, you know, I don't really think you need to use that kind of language.

Say what you need to say, do it in a respectful tone.

There are younger people here, but he would allow them to say whatever they wanted to say in whatever way they wanted to say it, and then he would explain to them with a smile on his face, why they were wrong.

And nobody could have called it a candle to him in terms of winning the debate.

And what I noticed over the years of watching those videos is that more and more kids on college campuses, which is kind of a shock, would start showing up with Make America Great hats on or otherwise expressing support for Charlie Kirk's position, And it just showed the impact that he was going to have.

In fact, the most impactful on me, the impactful tribute I've seen to Charlie Kirk since his assassination on Wednesday, And I wish I'd said this because it was just so astute and I can't even attribute it to whoever coined this, but he said, Charlie Kirk was not killed because he was talking to America's youth.

Charlie Kirk was killed because they were listening to him.

And that hit me like a ton of bricks.

That hit me hard between the eyes.

And I said, that is one thousand percent true.

And listen, I've gone past the quarter hour.

I'm gonna stay on this a bit.

I'm gonna talk about Charlie's expression of his views on the Second Amendment, how that's getting grossly mischaracterized.

But I want to I want to play for you exactly what he did say in the exact quote that's completely getting mischaracterized, in my mind, bastardized beyond all recognition out on social media and otherwise.

Right now, we're taking a break.

This is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC, second.

To nine on this Second Amendment.

This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on ninety three WYVC.

And welcome back.

I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC, and listen before we go any further, Thanks so much to Melissa who called and I think very accurately corrected me and said, I was talking about Charlie Kirk doing change change my mind and you know, set up a table with some unpopular statement and then ask people to come challenge him and potentially change his mind.

And Melissa said, no, that was Stephen Crowd.

That wasn't Charlie Kirk.

So I screwed that up, apparently, And thanks to Melissa for calling in.

When I do screw up on the air, which certainly does happen from time to time, I love being corrected.

So I don't just leave misinformation out there.

I don't certainly do it intentionally, And often comments like that tend to be off the cuff, which increases dramatically the likelihood of being wrong.

So Melissa, thank you, and I stand corrected.

But the point I'm making about Charlie Kirk, and it really is what strikes me about And I don't name names.

I don't name names of mass shooters.

I don't name names of people who commit horrible political crimes, at least in part motivated by trying to make a name for themselves in some way, some despicable way.

But this person who's now at least the suspect and is about to be charged with his crime.

Made the decision to assassinate Charlie obviously because he hated what Charlie had to say.

And that's so evil and ironic at the same time to me, because what does that say about this person?

And listen, I've heard reports, I've read news articles that say a person well recently dropped out of will was said to be described at least as being smart and came from a conservative family, although apparently was quote unquote radicalized and moved far left to the rest of his family here recently.

But what does this say about him?

When when you hate so passionately what someone has to say that you're willing to murder them.

You're willing to commit one of not thee in my mind, but one of the worst crimes you can commit and take the life of another individual who, by all accounts you've never met in person, has done no individual harm to you.

But you so hate their message and so hate what they have to say, that you're willing to murder them in the most violent of ways while they're on stage at a public event, as opposed to taking the microphone that he would have offered you if you know anything.

And again I screwed up the Stephen Crowder reference, and again my apologies for that.

But knowing what I do know about Charlie Kirk, if you want a microphone to engage him, he'll give you a microphone.

How I saw one video.

In fact, this one comes up a lot, and I've seen other people refer to it on social media.

A guy, kind of an odd guy, is backpack on in front rather than on his back, and he had an electronic bullhorn.

And he came to a Charlie Kirk rally or presentation or debate at whatever term you want to apply to it, and was standing in the crowd screaming over everybody with his bullhorn.

What did Charlie do?

He said, hey, come on, bring him on up, bring him to the front, give him the microphone.

And the guy still wanted to be on his bullhorn, even as they gave him a microphone.

He said, look, you've got a microphone.

Charlie did drop the microphone, drop the bullhorn.

Rather, you've got a microphone.

Say what you want to say.

And all the guy wanted to do was attack Charlie, and Charlie kept saying, well, what do you want to talk about.

What do you disagree with?

What are you so upset about?

Tell me what the problem is?

And the guy could never even articulate that.

But my point is, if you hate the message of someone so much that you're considering violence against them, I can understand, not enough to be homicidal, no way, no how.

I'm not built like that, But I can understand frustration with the inabilit to reach that person.

How many public figures do you know that block comments on their social media or just ignore them altogether and never respond to anything.

How many public figures what are political or otherwise are commentators?

Is it impossible to reach, to make your voice known and to explain to them why they're wrong, and explain to them why what they're having to say is as despicable as you think it is.

How many public figures are accessible in any way, shape or form other than maybe screaming at them on the sidewalk as they walk by into some event.

The fast majority of public figures are exactly that way.

They're insulated.

They're isolated, and intentionally so, and I don't blame them.

How many people want to open themselves up to all the lunatics?

Who are out there, and at the end of the day, there's a very good argument to say that's what Charlie got Charlie Kirk killed was his willingness to engage, his willingness to be open, his willingness to give anybody a micro But how much of a despicable low life sob do you have to be when you hate someone's views, you hate what they have to say in a public forum so much that you're considering murdering them.

But rather than having the balls to show up take a microphone and explain to him why he's wrong, to engage him in the debate that he was willing to engage in any day, anytime, whenever he had one of these events.

You're so much of a coward it's an implicit acknowledgment that you can't address him with logic, You can't confront him with reason and facts.

So you're gonna address an all black hide on the roof and murder him from two hundred yards away while he's sitting there offering you a microphone at the very moment you made the decision to take his life.

How much of a despicable coward do you have to be when He's not one of these insulated, isolated, unreachable public figures.

He's precisely the opposite.

That's why he was there, that's why he has these events.

I'll hand you a microphone and you can tell me why I'm wrong.

You can call me every name in the book.

I will explain to you why none of those names apply to me, and will go on from there.

And if you can win with logic and reason and facts, then take your best shot.

But oh no, a coward decided to end his life instead, and it's affected me more than I care to admit.

I mean, Wednesday night, after it all happened, my wife and I are watching the news, and there were videos and pictures of him and his family, and his beautiful, beautiful wife and his beautiful, beautiful kids, and I had an emotional reaction, and at one point my wife looked over at me and said, I didn't know you cared so much about Charlie Kirk, And all I could say was I didn't know I did either.

But it just hit me like such a ton of bricks, because he was exactly what I think a lot of people aspire to be, which is someone who not only had their views and had their views held strong wing and with huge conviction, but was willing to put his views to the test, and it was willing to be confronted over and over and over again.

He traveled the country willing to be confronted.

And it just struck it struck me as so much of a profound loss to this country, and certainly beyond measure and beyond my ability to articulate to his his his family, and his close friends and loved ones.

That's why it hit me, and it hit me hard.

We're going to take a break and we come back.

We'll talk a little bit about why Charlie and something he said at a public forum is being severely criticized and attack about the Second Amendment.

In the context of the Second Amendment, Let's talk about what he actually said and how it's being portrayed.

When we come back, join the discussion.

You have a comment, you want to make a question, you want to ask me.

Three one seven two three nine ninety three ninety three three one seven ninety three, ninety three.

This is Guy Raylford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC.

The show about gun rights, gun safety, and responsible gun ownership.

This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford.

And welcome back.

I'm Guy Ralford on the Gung Guy Show on ninety three WIBC.

And hey, thanks so much to my friends on the chat feature on YouTube.

If you've never watched video of the show, I always said exactly the same thing.

Not much to watch necessarily, it's just me sitting behind the microphone.

But the chat feature I think is interesting for a lot of folks and a lot of interaction on there, and people continue to educate me, in addition to our caller Melissa who correctly informed me that it wasn't Charlie Kirk that had changed my mind, that was Stephen Crowder.

But then people went on there and said, well Charlie had on his tent and perhaps on signs as well.

He used proved me wrong, so I could easily justify my confusion between proved me wrong and changed my mind.

Very similar.

But that's just what I love about the approach is now he doesn't just put the sign up.

He's handing people microphones.

His staff are saying, come on up and you want to disagree, prove me wrong.

I'm not going to hide behind security, hide behind social media.

With the comments turned off or ignore any comments that come in just the opposite.

And again that's what is so heartbreaking to me about his loss, especially his loss was someone who disagreed with him, because Charlie would have given him absolutely every opportunity to have a microphone in his hand and explain to the world why Charlie was wrong and to prove why he was wrong, exactly as Charlie invited untold, untold numbers of people to do at his public events.

But listen, one thing that I keep seeing.

There are some quotes that the left are using to I don't know, to try to detract from how horrific the loss of Charlie's life has been, and and and who he really was, and to denigrate and diminish who he was.

And and it was one and somebody somebody said, well, you know, he said he hated the word empathy, and so if he hated empathy, then I'm I'm not I'm certainly not going to give him any uh And and I looked up that actual quote.

And.

I'm paraphrasing a bit here, But he didn't just leave it there.

He didn't say he didn't like the word empathy.

He said when people use the word empathy, He's not sure they understood the fact that empathy means you're trying to place yourself in the in the exact position of someone else in experience exactly it is what it is that they're experiencing.

And while that may be commendable, he much prefers the term sympathy and compassion because sympathy and compassion is you, as a separate person, reaching out to that person and feeling and expressing to them your sense of loss along with them.

That is, you, as a separate person, are trying to console them with sympathy and with compassion.

And that's why he preferred the term.

And for somebody to just say that Charlie Kirk didn't like the word empathy and to use that to portray him as some cold hearted bastard that deserves no respect even in death, is an intentional mischaracterization of what is he said.

You need to go on and to say he much prefers the word sympathy and compassion, and what better word to describe someone in this context than compassionate.

But that's the kind of bs that were put up with when people want to mischaracterize what I want to to play for you now, and we're gonna go ahead and take a break because I'm gonna come back and break this down a bit.

We're going to play for you now.

Is a quote see here exactly I won't have to paraphrase it that that people are saying, well, I have no huh, empathy or sympathy or compassion, pick your word there for Charlie Kirk having been killed, especially with a gun, since he said some number of gun desks are just okay with him, and he he rationalized and was okay with the idea of children being killed.

This is exactly how this is being mischaracterized, just so we can quote unquote have a second Amendment.

Here's what Charlie actually said.

So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun debts to zero.

It will not happen.

You could significantly reduce them.

Th're having more fathers in the home.

Yes, by having more arm guards in front of schools.

We should have an honest and clear reduction this view of gun violence.

But we said not have a utopian one.

You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death.

That is nonsense.

It's drible, but I am I think it's I think it's worth it.

I think it's worth to have a cost of unfortunately some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God given rights.

That is a prudent deal.

And with that, let's take a break.

I'll be right back.

We'll go to the phone lines.

We have, any callers.

I haven't checked that out here for a while.

Three one seven two three nine ninety three ninety three, three one seven two three nine ninety three ninety three.

We come back.

I'm gonna talk about why the characterization of the quote you just heard from Charlie Kirk was so has been so completely unfair to say he's okay with children dying just so we can quote unquote have a Second Amendment.

That's not what he's saying, that's not what he meant, and that mischaracterization, along with many others, just shows how far so many will go to try to demonize someone who really ought to be respected, certainly having lost him, We'll be right back.

This is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC.

Sure Rights, your responsibilities your guns.

This is the Gun Guy with Guy Ralford on WYDC.

And welcome back.

So the quote you heard just before the break from Charlie Kirk has been so dramatically mischaracterized.

What do you really say?

He said?

First of all, there's no way you're going to get gun deaths to zero.

I mean, is that disputable in America today?

Are we ever going to get gun deaths to zero?

Well, it's not subject to any rational dispute that.

No, obviously you're never going to get that number to zero.

But when you listen to liberals and gun control proponents, what do you castan here?

We could end school shootings if we just ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

I've seen that sign.

I've heard people say exactly that.

I've heard politicians say that, major national politicians, well, in school shootings if we just passed on assault weapons ban, but the Republicans don't have the heart to do it because they're in the pocket of the TERA.

Well, I'm sorry, the NA doesn't wield that kind of influence.

Certainly not anymore, and it never did to that degree.

It makes no sense to me.

But secondly, does that even make logically?

Does it make any damn sense.

The worst school shooting in history is you've heard me say on the air before the wort school shooting was at Virginia Tech.

Twenty two deaths, as I recall, with two handguns.

Is there a logical proposal out there, a rational proposal out there right now to ban handguns.

I'm sure a lot of liberals love to do so.

They love to ban every gun on the planet, but the Supreme Court said that's not possible.

So this ending school shootings is a complete farce.

Is it's impossible, will never happen.

And let's say you did ban all firearms together.

Let's just say, like we've say, banned heroin, how's that working out.

Let's ban fetanyl.

Great, no one will ever get killed by an overdose of fentanyl again.

Or maybe that doesn't work quite that way.

And people have this utopian view.

They're like, if we pass this law or that law, we passed it as as Sulivan banned tomorrow, It's like they literally think that means we can push a button in all the so called political bs term but all the so called a Soulovan spons assault weapons would disappear tomorrow.

Does it make any sense?

Doesn't make any sense to any thinking rational human being.

Of course not.

You could ban all firearms tomorrow, give them up or destroy them, or you're gonna face the rest of your life in prison.

Well, who's gonna give him up?

The law abiding citizens?

Who's not?

Come on?

Is that a hard question?

So all Charlie's saying is you're not gonna get gun desks to zero.

So yes, we're gonna have some desks every year.

But in the meantime, we have the Second Amendment, that is the protection for all of the rights we have as citizenry that, yes, is capable of standing up to a tyrannical government.

Exactly is the founder's ad vision, exactly the reason they wrote the Second Amendment to begin with.

Is there a price to pay for liberty?

You bet?

Is there a price for having a First Amendment?

Yes, we're gonna hear the idiocy and ignorance from not real Nazis, not those of us accused of that every day, but real idiots, knuckle dragging morons who are really Nazis.

Yes, we have to listen to them too.

Unfortunately, at least they have a voice.

Is our downside to protection against illegal searches?

And seizures.

Yes, some drug dealers are gonna get away because police had to run and get a warrant before they can kick a door in.

Does that mean it's not worth it having that liberty and having an armed society, or some people gonna die at the muzzle of a gun.

The answer is yes.

Does that mean we eliminate that freedom?

No, that was the point Charlie Kirk made.

That's a fair point, that's an indisputable point.

But he's being demonized over it anyway.

That's what's so colossally unfair.

Where at the end of the hour, tell you what, if you're on hold, don't give up, have some patience over the break.

We'll come back to you right when we come back at the top of the hour.

This is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep in their arms shall not be infringed.

This is the Second Amendment, and this is the Gun Guy.

Boom boom boom boom bang bang bang bang boom boom, boom, boom, bang bang.

Bom Guy Ralford on ninety three w YBC.

Well, and welcome back for hour number two of the Gun Guys Show here on ninety three WYBC.

We're talking about the senseless, certainly tragic and and and for a lot of us heartbreaking loss of Charlie kirk At at the hands of an assassin who, to me committed one of those cowardly Actually, possibly, could you disagree with what somebody has to say when he's literally at the moment offering you a microphone to come up and explain to him why you disagree, you hate him, Come up and tell him why, come up and support that with some rational basis, some law, some facts, as he said, as I've been educated here by the YouTube commenters.

Uh, he said, prove me wrong, as on a tent open invitation.

Now I'm not able to prove you wrong, but I'm so I'm so angered by what you have to say.

I won't make any attempt to actually prove you wrong.

I want to make any attempt to actually explain my convictions and why I believe is I do country to your beliefs, I'll just dress in all black hide on a rooftop and kill you from two hundred yards away.

If there's been a more cowardly political act ever in the history of this country.

I'm not sure I know what it is, simply because Charlie offers anybody who what's one the microphone.

But with that, I'll tell you what.

We've had a number of people who called in before the break and thanks so much for your patience.

Let's go to the phone lines, and Brian has called Brian.

Thanks so much for calling the Gun Guy show tonight.

Hello guy, I just wanted to give my candolos to the burd family.

I'm that's just such a tragedy.

And then the change subject, I'd like to ask your opinion about it.

I'm looking at a Rossi three fifty seven magnum three yea barrel click shot and if if you're a yeah, you're a name.

Oh yeah, that's a ya.

I mean absolutely, Rossie's a quality gun and I own a three fifty seven magnum Mine is a is a Smith and Wesson.

Uh what is it?

Uh?

Six twenty six I think is my model number.

Gosh, it's been long enough since I've I've tried to think, but no, no, Rossi's a fine gun, three pot fifty seven with a three inch barrel, solid gun, you know, and and and man, I law enforcement carried very similar gun to that for years and years and years.

So no, that's absolutely a thumbs up for me.

It's back to the phone lines, and I'm sure I'm going to mispronounce this.

Is it AMMERANKI?

Yes, it's a'maranke.

Okay, i'maron k.

I was close.

I'm sorry.

I meant no disrespect.

No, it's okay, okay.

Well, thank you so much for calling in.

Yes, thank you so much for inviting us.

You know, I feel like this is such an important topic that you bring up, and thank you for this opportunity to just speak out.

Sure, you know, I'm a licensed clinical social worker in Indiana and Florida, and so I first hand see how generational trauma shapes mental health, especially in the most impoverished, in the black communities, the LGBT communities, the woman communities, populations that have been systematically just ignored.

And I need to say this plainly, these gun debates our distraction.

The people most obsessed with taking rights away are often struggling themselves with their own mental health and have no real place in these political fights.

And this is not just an issue, It's an amendment issue.

This is not a gun issue.

After the Civil War ended in eighteen sixty five, the Fourteenth Amendment, the fifteenth Amendment guaranteeing us black folks right, that was put in place, and so through the Jimcrow era of the nineteen by the nineteen hundreds, you know, after Jim Crow Mississippi, ninety percent of Blacks were voting in Mississippi.

By the end in eighteen ninety two only six percent.

Because of the blood that.

Was paid was by black folks.

It was through.

Lynchings, beatings, constant assaults on our dignity.

And so when I hear debates about the Second Amendment, I see a smoke screen, because if one amendment can be stripped away, it gives a legal basis.

Every lawyer knows this.

It gives a legal basis for others to disappear for black Americans.

That's not a type of theory that we need in our history.

We should be investing in counseling, trauma services, financial security, strong communities, creating networks so that people Americans can help Americans in their hardest time.

We should not be focusing wasting money on dismantling constitutional protections that are here to protect us all.

And so when rights vanished, communities are always fractured.

And it's those who are suffering the most who are fractured the most, you know, and their safety and well being it's completely lost.

And so every community deserves the right to be able to protect themselves.

Oh amarn kay, I couldnot possibly agree with you more.

And in fact, that is so eloquently stated.

I mean, you mentioned the Fourteenth Amendment, passed after the Civil War specifically meant to make sure of equal protection under the law.

What good does equal protection under the law really do for any population of people?

And we know specifically what population that was intended.

I mean, obviously it's all all Americans, but specifically motivated by the experiences of the post Civil War former slaves in this country.

What good does it do if we're willing to turn our back on that law and turn our back on the Constitution and not take full advantage of what of what the fourteenth Amendment, as well as the rest of the Constitution was intended to preserve for all of us, exactly.

And that's my point exactly.

And so this is a smoke screen.

This is really an amendment issue.

The gun issue is just a smoke screen that really we're talking about amendments being eroded.

I couldn't possibly agree with you more.

And I gotta tell you it's my favorite call in a long time.

You call back into The Gun Guy Show any time you want to, because it was an honor to have you on this show tonight, Jeff, I'll tell you what, that's a tough one to follow.

Brother, Welcome to the Gun Guy Show.

I don't know I could do that, sir, in the first in the first place, Guy, thank you for what you do for Indiana.

Thank you.

I'd say it for the two as I had around it.

Man, I'm sixty four years old.

I got a twenty four year old daughter telling me, and I watched Charlie Kirk sometimes on YouTube and everything.

Yeah, and I thought they were doing a great thing.

Because I ain't gonna lie to you.

I graduated in seventy eight and I went into the service.

I came back and some of the people that have went to college, I didn't know them anymore because they they had done there right, they had done their brainwashing and already starting it.

And that was in nineteen seventy eight.

I mean the brainwashing in our so called higher institutions is a hell of a lot worse than it was when I went to school.

I'm only two years ahead of you in school.

I graduated in seventy six.

I went into college and even what is now a very liberal college over at DePaul, and it's a hell of a lot worse now than it was then.

But I absolutely take your point.

So my daughter, who's twenty four now, okay, she's a sad second marriage, so she's twenty four, and she was like that, I just don't understand it.

Why is it always the liberals and the And I am not going to I'm not here to denounce any anybody in their politics, but I am a conservative and a Republican.

Why is it?

She asked me that it's always they.

They hide anything that happens with the Democratic or someone that lean's left assassinating or trying to assassinate or do anything else, and they and they, you know, and I explained to her, I went back biblically and I said, you know, can and Abel, it doesn't have anything to do with a gun.

It was a rock.

I mean, come on, people are going to kill people and it doesn't have to do with a gun.

But the guns were invented to protect yourself when they were maybe for war.

But I can't get it.

I can't wrap my head around it.

No, and I agree with you, and listen, I've got adult kids, Jeff, and and I'd be lying if I said all three of my kids share my politics, some little more than others, some absolutely do not.

But you know, what we are able to do as a family is able to sit down and debate those issues and do it respectfully and do it rationally.

And there are times when you know, in debating things like Second Amendment issues, for instance, I've got one son.

He's a school teacher and he's in Denver, Colorado, and he's politically is very, very different than me.

I'll guarantee you we've voted differently for a lot of years.

But we can sit down and talk about Second Amendment issues and he listens, and he listens with an open mind, and he's willing to apply logic and facts and reason and those kinds of discussions.

And frankly, that takes me back, and I didn't do this intentionally.

Takes me back to the discussion of Charlie Kirk and why it's such a huge loss, because because it really is a lot like discussions I'll have around the dinner table when we're together.

And again, again, being a thousand miles apart makes it a little difficult sometimes.

And and we can have debates and and and it's and and and and it's improved me wrong mentality, because to ask that question, or to make that challenge means you have to be open to the possibility of being proven wrong and to listen to both sides.

He listened to the other side and consider both sides of any given argument.

And that's just so important.

And that's what Charlie Cook Kirk stood for.

It was and was he emphatic and passionate about his beliefs about his religion and being a child of God, and and and about the Constitution, and about his love for this country and his support for conservative values.

Of course, he was passionate about all those things, but he was still willing to sit and listen and engage in a a in a in a good faith debate and allows someone the opportunity to quote unquote prove him wrong.

And and and I love that.

I love that about him, And and I'm going to miss that horribly And you know, we heard from his beautiful, beautiful wife Eric I believe her name is As I watched her interview last night, or her public statement is probably a better description, and she said she's not going to let Turning Point USA dies.

She's not going to let Charlie's message die.

She will make sure that his memory endoors and that his mission continues.

And I'm really fascinated to see what form that takes, because it's a voice we need.

It's an approach to political issues that we need for all the reasons I've talked about throughout the show.

A willingness to listen, a willingness to accept anyone else's opportunity to express their views and to explain why you're wrong, to explain why they believe.

And again, all the labels, fascist, nazi, racist, homophobe, transphobe, all the language, and he would simply explain to them, with a smile on his vice, why they were wrong and challenge them to refute his points.

And they never could.

And I think that's even why this one particular coward chose to end his life rather than engagement in a debate.

To me, is what we call it tacit admissions admission.

That's that's something you learn learned a long long time ago in law school, which is sometimes you can admit things without expressly admitting them.

In other words, your silence constitutes an admission in certain circumstances where a normal person would agree and do so emphatically, and you're silent.

That's exactly what we call it, a tacit admission.

And being asked being you know, to watch someone sitting on a stage handing out microphones to anyone who wants to walk up and engage him and choosing instead to shoot him.

Yes, as cowardly, indespicable and inhumane as that is, as worthy of the severest punishments we have to hand out in this country, it's also cowardly, and it's an admission that had you taken that microphone, you to follow on your face, embarrassed yourself and been completely incapable of proving Charlie Kirk wrong about anything.

And with that we're taking a break.

Great callers tonight, thanks so much for calling in love, Love Love, our callers, give us a call, Join the discussion.

Three one seven two three nine ninety three ninety three three one seven two nine ninety three ninety three.

This is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC.

Now you've got a gun guy, Guy Ralford on ninety three WYPC.

Ed Welcome back.

I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC.

And thanks again to our callers.

Wow, great, great callers, Uh tonight and we love it when you join the show, So give us a call, join the discussion.

Three one seven two three nine ninety three ninety three.

Well, we'll go back to the phone lines here in just a bit, but before we do, I also want to comment on some other things that are that are out there on social media or being floated around by various network talking heads, and a lot of it is I don't I started to say irritating.

I don't know about irritating to me, but just noteworthy to me, perhaps in a somewhat negative sense.

And I'll talk about a couple of things.

You know, a lot of people and this is true before the suspect was identified and arrested, but even since then, since this guy's been named and held in custody, a lot of people have been out there and and again similar things.

Before the arrest and they've all been saying, well, you know, this had to be a highly trained and I've seen the term professional hit man or experienced sniper to have made this shot.

And as I've watched that, and what I always try to do, and if you listen to the Gun Guy Show, and this is true when I appear on Hammer Nigel, either Monday Gun Day or when I fill in as a temporary co host, is when we're talking about events in the news, especially as they're developing and there are a lot of unknown facts.

I always try really hard.

I don't know that I'm one thousand percent successful in this, but I try really hard to not speculate or guess and I want to withhold comment that It is certainly withhold any comment that's not based on fact or established fact, and it's based on a guess or an assumption, and it's irritating to me.

And that's the right word in that context when I hear other commentators or certainly the talking heads on the net works and cable news, who are throwing around speculation and guesses and assumptions like their facts, and it's not to me good broadcasting and it's unfair to their viewing or listening audience, and so it's something I try certainly to avoid.

But when I when I see certain things that are being floated around as facts, and especially on gun related or Second Amendment related issues, there are times when I am somewhat compelled to weigh in and and and and that is certainly true on this idea that well, a two hundred yard shot must have been done by a very highly trained, skilled shooter and even to the point of, you know, must have been a professional hitman or a highly experienced trained sniper.

And listen, long range shooting is not what I would put at the top of my skill set when it comes to firearms.

But I've had precision rifle training.

I own a couple of what I would call precision rifles, and yes one even the model number.

It's an advanced sniper rifle from Bell Precision Rifles, and the most expensive gun I own actually when you add up to optics and everything else associated with it.

And yes, I've had some training in long range ballistics and marksmanship.

And when I see some of that stuff floating around, I really I am compelled to comment within what it is we know, at least based on currently reported facts about the shooting in Utah of Charlie Kirk and listen, I said this on Hammer and Nigel the same day it happened, and again trying very hard to not speculate on anything, they asked me a direct question, well, guy, didn't this have to be someone who was highly trained in long distance shooting?

And my immediate answer was absolutely not.

And that was before the specific rifle had been identified.

In fact, I said, and we'll see what additional facts that come out, I said, I said, Listen, without knowing the rifle, I go, this is just as likely someone using Grandpa's Bold Action deer gun as it is you know, someone who's more trained and more sophisticated with higher end weaponry.

And listen, I don't know where this particular suspect got his Bold Action Mauser Model ninety eight in thirty six, which is the weapon that's now been identified, But if somebody said his grandpa's deer rifle, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

And certainly I'm sure that in similar rifles like the Winchester Model seventy and the Remington Model seven hundred I've I've owned a Renton Model seven hundred in thirty odd six very similar to the Mauser with a couple of minor differences, so it's not a particularly sophisticated weapon.

It did have an optic on it.

It had a scope on it which appeared to have some level of magnification.

So you've got a magnified optic on a Mauser thirty hot six Bold action rifle.

And let's talk a little bit more about what that is.

I've seen people describe it as a single shot rifle.

They said, well, they were describing the rifle based on a picture they'd seen and there was not a detachable magazine.

So because there was no detachable magazine, they said, oh, well, it's obviously a single shot rifle.

Well, no, there are guns, particularly Bold action guns and many others, that have what we call an integral magazine or an internal magazine, an internal fixed magazine.

It's not visible from the outside of the gun, but it's still a magazine in the sense that it holds multiple rounds of ammunition.

The bouncer's ninety eight that I've shot, and yes, I've shot a couple of them, have a five round inte goal or internal magazine.

And in terms of this particular rifle.

We know there are multiple rounds still found within it, and including the empty shellcasing found within it.

Why because unless you operate the action the bolt action after you fire a shot, if you don't operate the action, the shellcasing from the rounds you just fired stays in the gun.

And that's exactly what was described by law enforcement.

And I believe the governor out there, who's a rock star by the way, A big fan of this guy, Governor Cox, I believe is his name, and has just done I think a Spencer Cox, as I recall, and I think in the news conferences and whatnot, I think some of the messages he's delivered in the way he's conduct to himself, I put him way way up out.

He's done a fabulous job.

I think you're going to see a lot more of him on the national stage in terms of Republican politics.

But the way he described it, I think it was very accurate.

So so okay, So it's a bold action rifle.

What does that mean?

Most people will tell you that intrinsically, And there's so many other variables about a gun in terms of quality, the build and the quality of the barrel and the quality of the trigger and optics, and there's so many other variables, but generally speaking, if you're going to homogenize across a whole range of issues, a bold action gun having fewer moving parts, certainly fewer moving parts at the time the trigger's being pulled, it's going to be more accurate than a's semi automatic.

Now, are there semi automatic sniper rifles?

Yes?

Does military use a semari semi automatic sniper rifle?

Yes?

They also for more long distance shots and I think the more challenging shots also have a number of bold action rifles, and generally speaking, bold action are considered to be more accurate and where round count isn't your number one priority, including when you're out hunting a deer, for instance, and if you listen to the gun Guy show, I am not a big hunter.

I have certainly been and enjoyed it when I've done it, but that's not been my focus.

My focus has always been more on self defense type training.

But perfectly perfectly suitable for that and also highly highly accurate, and the thirty odd six rounds one't been around forever.

If you wanted to do a do everything rifle in North America and hunt most game available in North America is the thirty odd six is going to take care of you?

Really really well?

You bet I had I had somebody post oh, thirty odd six.

Well that, by definition it casts casts a huge doubt on what that was the actual gun used in the shooting, because that's not a gun a sniper would use.

That's a hunting rifle in thirty odd six.

Well, let's talk about that a little bit.

You know who the most prolific successful sniper in the Vietnam War was god named Carlos Hethcock.

And I read his book called White White Feather.

That was his nickname that the Vietcong actually gave him because he wore a white feather in his floppy hat while he was out in the field.

And I believe it was ninety three.

I just looked at this couple of days ago, ninety three ninety four confirmed kills in Vietnam.

You know what rifle he used?

Predominantly a Winchester Model seventy thirty HODD six.

In fact, marine snipers and Vietnam predominantly used thirty hot six Winchester model seventies, very very analogous, very similar gun to a Mauser model ninety eight.

So don't tell me thirty hot six is not used by quote unquote snipers or it's not going to be use for a long distance shooting of that nature.

That's a bit silly.

But let's address though.

And we're a little pass bot in the air, so we need to take a break.

When I come back, I'm gonna I'm one go to the phone lines.

We've had a caller waiting for a while.

But two, I'm going to address this idea that you must have been a highly highly trained individual, whether you're a and I think people love this because it just sounds ominous.

It sounds like something from Hollywood, although certainly these people exist.

They're a professional hit man or a trained experienced sniper.

Is that true because you made a two hundred yard shot with a bold action rifle from a stationary prone position, particularly when the rifle's are thirty odd to six with magnified optics on it.

Let's talk about that a little bit when we come back, as well as going to the phone lines.

This is Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC.

He's a Second Amendment attorney.

He's an NRA certified firearms instructor.

He's the gun Guy Guy Ralford on ninety three WYPC.

And welcome back.

I'm Guy Ralford on The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WIBC.

So the point I wanted to make, and I made this on social media and you can see my longer comment on both Twitter or x Give me a follow while you're on there.

I'm trying to build that following.

At one point a number of years ago, I had a previous producer before producer Jack, and I was complaining about my lack of Twitter followers.

I think I was before the name change and as producer Carl as I recall who now produces Tony Katz's show, and Carl looked at me and he said, well, do you ever see anything interesting on Twitter, at which point I said, well, no, I'm not on there all that much, and he rolled his eyes and said, well, dummy, that's why you don't have any follow or.

So I'm trying to be much more involved and an active on Twitter and posted kind of a long description of this issue I'm discussing right now, which is do you have to be a professional hit man or trained sniper to make a two hundred yard shot.

No, in fact, do the facts available today, and listen, I'm open to more facts.

People.

There's all kinds of conspiracy theories out there.

This wasn't the real shooter, and this guy's being framed and the whole things that cover up and it's part of the deep state and so on and so forth, and listen.

That may be absolutely true, that may be proven.

At some point, it may go unproven, and we'll all be misled like I think we probably have been for a number of years on the complete facts of the JFKNS assassination.

So look, those things happen, and I don't discount that, but based on facts known today, at least as reported today, do you have to be a skilled shooter to make this shot under these circumstances?

No, And in fact, the circumstances told me this was not a skilled shooter and awsomeone with a lot of advanced one.

I don't know that you use a Mauser ninety eight again three thirty eight six used to sniper rifles for generations.

Person on Facebook just gave me another example of a sniper rifle chambered in thirty out six adopted by the Marines during Korean War, so yes, but a Mauser with what appeared to me to be a pretty low budget optic on it.

It was questionable how the optic was even mounted on this rifle.

I don't know that that's your gun if you're a trained sniper.

But that's not even the point, because with a Mauser ninety eight, any kind of a modern Mauser, perfectly solid gun with a decent optic on it from two hundred yards, I'm just telling you that's not a hard shot.

It's not a difficult shot.

And that's not because I'm some master long distance shooter.

That's not at all.

I made this comment on social media.

It was interesting and I should have anticipated this, but the hunters all all weighed in, several of them anyway, and said, hey, I've been shooting groundhogs at four hundred yards with a less accurate rifle than a males or ninety eight for a lot of years, and started doing so when I was twelve.

I mean, a solid, bold action rifle with a decent magnified optic on it, I said on Hammer Nodule on the day that Charlie Kirk was killed, they were talking to me, asking me questions about the rifle.

And I said, listen, if a rifle shoots straight, and you have a decent way of aiming it, in this case a magnified optic, then you can make a two hundred yard shot without a lot of difficulty.

My long range shot, long range gun which I described earlier, my favorite one.

I also have a six point five creed more very very accurate out to six eight hundred yards.

I mean those guns at two hundred you know, keeping your shots within one moa, which is no more than an inch deviation at one hundred yards, that's easy.

That's what the gun's made to do.

A lot of rifles have half moa guarantees, meaning no more than half an inch deviation had one hundred yards.

So you hold the gun steady, you know how to pull the trigger.

A shot at two hundred yards is not a difficult shot.

And the other thing that it makes me question is because a two hundred yards shot is not a particularly difficult shot.

And Charlie Kirk, unfortunately, and listen, somebody posted this video and I have mixed emotions about the fact that I watched it, but I did watch it, and I'm a little I don't know part of me wants the information, but I'm also I could have easily lived without having seen the image.

And it's a tough one.

It's a tough one to watch, especially, you know, when you have feelings of respect and certainly sympathy and compassion for the person that it's happening to.

But a trained professional sniper, quote unquote, a professional hit man quote unquote, doesn't aim for the neck.

It's just not taught.

And some people wanted to debate me on this on social media, and it was like, well, they could have been sending a message that if you say something we don't like, we'll silence you by shooting you in the throat.

Hey, look, anything's possible.

Interesting theory.

And they said, well, we'll kill someone in the most grotesque way possible and that'll just send a message.

Well, no professional snipers are shot to aim at the head, particularly what we call the occipital prietal box, the cranial ocular box, the head or center mass of the torso a lot of people call the bread box where vital organs are.

That's how professional shooters are trained.

Nobody's trained to shoot anybody in the neck.

Now, could there be a possibility you have a heavily armored target.

He's got body armor on up to his neck, got a ballistic helmet on that also covers his face.

Kind of a rare thing, but such a thing exists.

Could you want make a shot for the neck on a seated suspect?

Yeah, but a guy sit there wearing a T shirt with his full head exposed.

Does anybody shoot for the nick?

No?

And again, I don't mean to be graphic about this, and I don't want to show disrespect to Charlie.

I just want to throw a little rationality into so much of the speculation out there.

I don't think this needed to be a trained professional shooter.

And listen, if you don't think the current suspect actually committed the crime, and you think there's a broader conspiracy and he's a patsy and he's being framed, Okay.

Everybody's entitled to their theories and their speculation, and you're entitled to yours.

But I do not rule out this twenty two year old being the shooter simply because he made a shot at two hundred yards.

And I made the comment you give me two hours with anybody with a modern mouser in thirty odd to six and a decent optic, and in two hours, I'll have you shooting three inch groups at two hundred yards without much difficulty.

And I had a couple of people came on and chimed in and said, Guy, I wouldn't need two hours.

You give me somebody with normal vision and decent hand eye coordination.

And that was part of my description as well, because I'll have him doing it in fifteen minutes.

And as long as you have a stable platform, shooting from a prone position with a competent rifle and a decent optic, it's not a hard shot.

And again, I don't mean any of that to be disrespectful of the circumstances or the loss of life involved.

I just want to throw out there a little bit of fact to blend in with the speculation and conjecture that's going on online.

I'll tell you what a bone pass a three quarter hour, I'm going to try to take at least one called jeff'spin on hold forever.

And so I'm gonna try to get Jeff's call, and we'll wrap up this edition of The Gun Guy Show on ninety three WYBC.

Well, you've got a gun Guy guy, Ralfred on ninety three WYPC.

And welcome back to the last segment here of Tonight's The Gun Guy Show.

And I'll so let's go right to the phone lines because we've had Jeff on hold for fort a while.

Jeff, thanks for waiting, Mandus buddy, and thanks for calling The Gun Got Show.

It's okay, man, I already called earlier.

All I was going to do was second you on the shot that can be made, okay.

And I will tell you that after I graduated high school, I went in and I joined the Marines.

I was in the Falklands and I was in Grenada, and I actually own a Marlin right now, and I own a couple of thirty out sixes.

To be honest with, I have a forty guns.

So look, I took my wife and my daughter out and set a pumpkin at two hundred yards.

And I know that women are better shooters.

Yes, that's true.

That's very very true.

By the way, one I.

Agree with that, and both of them hit the pumpkin at two hundred yards.

There you go with the morning.

So I wanted to just that you everything you've been preaching is the gods down the streets.

And one of these days I'll drive my Harley up there and buy your beer.

Everybody WWC knows me as regular, Jeff.

I've met Terry and Danny and Pat Tolvin and everybody else.

So look, one of these days I'm going to drive up there, ride up there and see.

Hey, Jeff, I'll tell you what.

I'll take you up on that and thanks for Colin.

And by the way, when we do, that'll be a day I ride my Harley up here too, so we'll park them together out on the circle and then find a place to have a beer.

But no, no, that's completely right, and it's just not a difficult shot.

And we had a caller call in and say, you know, a rookie shooter would be shaken like a leaf.

Look, I'm not saying this person is a completely inexperienced shooter.

I'm just saying that you cannot assume based on someone making a shot which, by the way, to me, was off target.

He's either aiming senator torso and shot high, or he's aiming at the head and shot low.

Either way, a two hundred shot is not so difficult that it required some advanced training or experience.

That's my point, and I'll stand by that, and Jeff, who's obviously a very experience and former military shooter himself, has the same experience, put one other thing too.

People said, well, no, we think it was an accurate shot that hit him in the chest, but it deflected upward because it hit Charlie's vest quote unquote bulletproof vest.

Listen, I don't rule anything out, and that may be true.

There's a video out there in slow motion that appears to support that in the sense that looked like looks like there's some impact to his chest.

We'll see.

For that to happen, it had to be what we call a level four vest.

In other words, it's a steel or ceramic that could deflect a rifle round thirty to six at roughly ninety degrees from coming straight in horizontally to going straight up and hitting him in the chin.

Could that happen with a ceramic vest or a steel vest?

Potentially?

Do I think that happened?

I sincerely doubt it.

And I also saw nothing so thick and noticeable as a ceramic or steel ballistic vest at level four under his T shirt.

That didn't appear that way to me at all.

More, when we come back next week on The Gun Guys Show on ninety three WIBC.