Episode Transcript
[00:00:14] Speaker A: Hello, welcome. Call Like I See it podcast.
I'm James Keys, and in this episode of Call Like I See it, we're going to discuss NBA star John Morant and his apparent affinity for guns. And we're also going to look at the two different conversations people seem to be having about this and kind of mixing together in a country like ours, which has quite an affinity for guns.
And later on, we're going to remember Jim Brown, who passed away on May 18, 2023, and consider how our society goes about remembering men and honoring men who have done great things, but whose legacy is not without any blemishes.
Joining me today is a man who can drop knowledge in a. In a conversation on any given Monday. Tunde. Ogonlana Tunde, are you ready to show the people how life is a game of inches? And so is podcasting?
[00:01:11] Speaker B: Yes, sir. Take my lumps. Take my hits along the way.
[00:01:16] Speaker A: All right, all right.
[00:01:17] Speaker B: We'll get to the finish line.
[00:01:19] Speaker A: We will. One inch at a time.
So we're recording this on May 22, 2023. And over the last week, we've seen lots of people react to the suspension of Memphis Grizzlies star John Moran, who Memphis Grizzly is a basketball team in the NBA, which he was hit with on May 14 following the release of a video. A release, you know, it was on social media, a video showing him riding in a car and brandishing a handgun. Now, this is his second suspension for brandishing a gun on a social media video this year. He was suspended back in March for doing so. But in this second time around, which, you know, the first time around, people were more reserved. You know, people make mistakes and so forth. But even so, opinions this time have been mixed because Morant on either occasion hasn't been charged with a crime. It's just more about, you know, the NBA saying, hey, we don't like this. We don't like this image, so we're spending you. And how people react to that have varied. So to get us started, Tunde, from your standpoint, what have been your thoughts on John Morant and the situation he's found himself in and also whether he's being treated unfairly, so to speak.
[00:02:25] Speaker B: Now, I think my personal feeling is, you know, we've kind of seen this before in terms of our society and our culture in general, meaning young men of Jamaran, I believe, is 21 years old.
[00:02:36] Speaker A: 23. 23, I believe.
[00:02:37] Speaker B: 23. But yeah, young man, that is in the point being.
[00:02:40] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah.
[00:02:41] Speaker B: In the spotlight who's, you know, Just has a spotlight on them. I thought about guys like Charles Barkley who said I'm not a role model when he was a younger, you know, athlete playing. You think about, you mentioned to me in a private conversation people like Tupac, you know, when he was alive, he was a young man that got in trouble, you know, in terms of, with the media and law enforcement and all that. So it's not new. I think what it's just, you know, I think this is the reason why I try not to pay too much attention in general about this kind of stuff is because I recognize he doesn't represent all 23 year old men. He doesn't represent all NBA players that have money that are his age. You know, most, a lot of people aren't behaving his way. So of course he makes the news.
And I don't think he's being treated unfairly to answer that part of the question. Because you know, at the end of the day he's, he's a professional athlete that everybody recognizes. You know, kids watch him, all this kind of stuff and you know, just like I said about Iris and Barclay or I'm sure I can name a million athletes out there who've done something in the past that the public has had an issue with. And I just think it's par for the course. You know, if you're going to be a professional athlete and a young man, there's people, if you behave a certain way that is perceived to be negative by society, people are going to make a reaction. And so I think it's, I think everything I've seen is like within the bounds of normalcy, of.
[00:04:05] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean there's, there's a scale to the thing. Like if they were saying there we're going to banish you forever from the NBA then, and then, you know, the conversation is different. Suspension, win games and his team's not even playing games anymore is kind of like, you know, that's, that's one of those, like they're just pressing pause more than anything. There's no functional thing that the suspension is doing. He's not getting paid anyway right now, you know, so it's, you know, he's suspended from team activities when there are no team activities. So, you know, it's more of a message than anything. You know, my thought in general when I, when I see stuff like this, particularly in the context of the fact that this is kind of a repeat thing that we've seen and something so, something that was so recent, you know, March and then now is, you know, it does seem like he's dealing with some things. Like this isn't, this doesn't come off to me as this is a guy who just doesn't care about authority or is thumbing his nose at, you know, kind of the establishment, so to speak. Like he's part of the establishment. You know, he, he's, he has a shoe deal, you know, with Nike as a signature shoe. And you know, so he's part of the establishment and for whatever reason, he's engaging in what you would consider to be self destructive, self destructive behavior. Like he's undermining all of the things. Now this guy, the reason this is a bigger deal is because he's not just a NBA player. He's not just, you know, a, a player who's a prominent player on his team or something. He is considered to be one of the players who may be a future face of the NBA. Like as Steph Curry and LeBron James in their mid to late 30s. He's one of the guys they're looking at. I just said he, his first signature shoe, which most people don't get that they're about 10 or you know what, Nike, they're about 10 or 12, 15 guys that have that kind of stuff. He, his just came out. And so this guy is a guy that is tagged for a very, very, very steep trajectory going up. And so this is befuddling to many people, like, well, what in the world's going on? Like this guy who has the world in his palm is throwing it all away, making YouTube. Not YouTube, but he's doing, doing Instagram live, you know, brandishing guns, you know, like he's shooting a rap video. And so to me, the first time around, you could say, okay, well, I didn't know that everybody would freak out if I did that. It wasn't illegal, you know, like, I'm just, you know, I'm just doing what I'm doing, you know, like there are many accounts, you know, I'm sure that where you'll see a gun or something like that in the social media, like, why is this a big deal? To me, the second time around was just like, all right, hold up, man.
You just saw that everybody was tripping when you did that before and nobody tried to say you need to go to jail. They were just pointing at your money. They were pointing at the, the, the, the opportunities that you have. So are you trying to throw those away? Like, is there, is it something going on where you don't want that anymore? So to Me, that's kind of what stood out. I want to kick it back to you real quick and then I'll, I'll get into the, the fairness part.
[00:06:48] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, I just, that's why I don't have much to say on this kind of topic. Why I kind of. Why I'm not on social media. Right. Like, I don't care to get in the young man's head, obviously, you know, whatever he's dealing with, he's dealing with. I just think that, you know, it is what it is and that's the beauty of our system. Right. If he's going to lose his shoe deals and all that, that's on him. Right. It'd be his own actions.
[00:07:10] Speaker A: It's his choice to make, basically. Like, it's not my choice to being.
[00:07:13] Speaker B: On Instagram with guns and all that and looking cool as a young man like that and thinking that's tough is more important than being a business, business guy. That's his choice. You know, I, I think everyone has a right to comment about it. I just don't feel like spending my energy doing it. I think that, you know, that, that it's, it's, you know, it is what it is. So I'll hand it back to you.
[00:07:34] Speaker A: Well, no, like, and the fairness piece I find interesting because this is where I see people having multiple different conversations and kind of in the name of John Moran, but they're not really. Half the time they're not really talking about John Moran. Because if you're going to have the conversation about John Roman, is he being treated fairly, then you can't, your comps can't be just any old dude, you know, it has to be someone who the NBA wants to make a face of their league or somebody who is in that prominent of a position that is looked at for your. Targeted for that kind of promotion and so forth. So the NBA from their standpoint, the employers, so to speak, they can punish you for all kinds of behavior that may not be unlawful. You know, like if, if he was, you know, doing any. There's other behaviors I'm sure if he was doing on Instagram Live that the NBA might look at and be like, hey, whoa, whoa, whoa. Memphis Grizzlies might like, whoa, we don't want you doing that. You know, we want an image of blank, you know, out there with, with the fans and so forth like that. So I think that his heightened and we've seen this point made. His heightened. He has a heightened responsibility. If he wants the spoils that come along with the, the, the promotion, the push that people want to put behind him now, it's not, he doesn't have to take that push. He doesn't have to. Like, all of that stuff is up to him. And I'm not counting his money. Like, if he wants the money, he can go get it. If he doesn't, then, you know, you can live a good life without $200 million or whatever. So ultimately though, I, like I said to me, it is more fascinating about, you know, because I brought up to you Tupac in the sense that his behavior seems very reckless and it seems to have started and increased as he's gotten more famous, you know, and it's like, because this isn't something you did, that he came into the draft like, oh yeah, John Morant makes a lot of bad decisions in life. It's like as he's gotten more famous, he's gotten in more trouble, which, you know, was kind of the mirror thing with Tupac. So that to me and that, that gets into a whole bunch of other things. So fairly, I think he's being treated relatively fairly, you know, so to speak. Like, it's hard to do a one to one comparison to say, okay, well what exactly would somebody else in this situation have? But he does have a heightened responsibility because he's on a higher plane as far as higher responsibilities, more people investing in him, so to speak, than the average person. So that can't be left behind. The second conversation though, which we'll get into is the whole idea of guns in society. You know, like when somebody says, oh well, John Morant shouldn't get in trouble with his employer because politicians have guns and political ads. And it's like, well, that's a different audience. You know, like that's, that's not unfairness. That's a conversation. You want to have a conversation about whether politicians should have guns in political ads, which we can have that conversation, but don't bring John Moran into that would be my thought on that. So, you know, look into the next part of this conversations, like, you know, your thoughts more generally on the guns in society conversation that, you know, people seem to want to have it there. Some people, not all people obviously, but some people want to have it. This, like, oh, well, you know, second Amendment. You know, people talk about second Amendment. He should be fine doing this. Wouldn't. It's not illegal, you know, just any of that stuff.
[00:10:28] Speaker B: Yeah, no, I mean it, it definitely opens up the conversation to a much broader look at American culture. And one of the Unique parts of American culture, which is our, our, our culture around guns. And I think you're right, we're the only country that I know of that has the ability to bear arms written in its actual founding documents of the, of the nation.
And you know, I pulled up the second amendment and just to read it real quick, I'll quote a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What I find fascinating about it, it's a very short statement and it's actually kind of vague because I mean I've, I've even in today preparing, I made sure to watch different videos and read different stuff of kind of different sides of this argument. They're kind of broke pro gun side, the people that want to regulate guns more and all that. And it's interesting the idea of a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state. So in one sense they're saying, hey look, a militia is a regulated group of men or people that have the ability to keep and bear arms, so forth.
But then other people interpret it, no, that means that every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms. I'm not here to argue with the nuances of that. I'm just. Because I wasn't there when they wrote it to ask him. I'm just saying that it's interesting that it is pretty vague and it allows for this open kind of discussion to say okay, what is it? What, what do they really mean? And then the second thing is, you know, getting back, and I'll kick it back to you, here is the history of this second amendment is very interesting because as we normally do in our discussions, getting back to the why, why did the founding fathers put this in there when we started as a country? And let's not forget that our nation was founded on rebellion. Right?
[00:12:23] Speaker A: So, so government.
[00:12:26] Speaker B: Correct. So we were not our own country first. Right. We were a colony of Britain. And so we didn't have a standing army back then because it was the British army, that was the army of the colonies, right? So you needed, in order to have the rebellion you had to form militias and do all this stuff. And so a lot of that language obviously made sense. And even the idea of militias that are armed really goes back to 16th century Britain. So just like many areas of law, the Americans borrowed a lot of British law. And one of the ideas in Britain was that every able bodied man in the time of war or battle needs to be able to be called up. But the one thing that they believed in is that they didn't believe that any man should ever be a career soldier.
[00:13:10] Speaker A: Yeah, they were apprehensive of standing armies.
[00:13:13] Speaker B: Correct.
[00:13:14] Speaker A: So that's the out a long time ago.
[00:13:16] Speaker B: No, I know, that's what I was going to say is that's why context is important. And I'll kick it back to you, but that's just for me to finish this point is because they didn't believe in standing militaries and armies, that was another thing. Right. It was more of a collective idea of bearing arms, that the able bodied men of the society should be able to be called up, you know, which means they should be able to have a gun and they should also be well regulated, meaning they should be trained on how to use them properly, so on and so forth. But the idea was that we're going to have that because we're not going to have career soldiers. We're not going to have an actual military that employs people just to do that as their profession being a soldier. So.
[00:13:54] Speaker A: And the reason for that by the way is.
[00:13:56] Speaker B: Yeah, go ahead.
[00:13:56] Speaker A: Because historically the thought process and what happened generally was when there was a standing army, eventually they would seize power or you know, someone would get, would gain their favor and then seize power. So it's like, well, if you don't have a standing army, then the civilians always stay in control and the art, the general or whoever the general throws his allegiance behind can't just take power, isn't just a ticking time bomb, so to speak. But I mean, I think it's a.
[00:14:18] Speaker B: Good point that you raised as you say that I just realized the constitutional originalists, how they let in the US military form.
[00:14:25] Speaker A: Well, but that's more of a recent thing. The whole originalism thing is more of a recent, you know, in terms of a legal philosophy. But ultimately, I mean, the guns in society conversation to me is interesting because it's something that we're having this conversation all the time right now. Like it is seems like daily or weekly we're hearing reports of another somebody walking in somewhere and shooting up somewhere. You know, it's just, it's happening all the time. And so rightfully so. People are like, hold on, why are we not doing anything about this? You know, like, and you know, numbers show like more Americans than not, significantly more Americans than not want there to be some kind of gun safety. And it always goes back to the second amendment of the Constitution, which everybody all of a sudden and like I'm an attorney and so I hear all these people talking. It's like, why is everybody all of a sudden a legal expert interpreting the Constitution? When you read the text, that's cool. But like, the First Amendment is vague. All the, like a lot of this legal stuff is set up in a certain way to then be interpreted to mean stuff. So, you know, I'll just give you an example then. This would be a example that wouldn't, people wouldn't find crazy or anything like that. But the, the First Amendment, you know, Congress shall make no law, dot, dot, dot, abridging the freedom of speech, you know, or of the press. So I, I, I put out, pulled out the part of the establishment orig, just because for this point it's not important. But I just want to talk about the abridging the freedom of speech. Well, look, if you go in to a movie theater and you yell fire, you'll get arrested and you'll go to jail.
They made a law that said that that abridged the freedom of speech. Well, no, it's not any speech, all speech whatsoever. Of course there's certain things that of speech that's not, quote, unquote, protected by that First Amendment. And so to me, it's silly when we get to this. Oh, well, the second Amendment says I have the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say any arms. Nobody's holding up the second Amendment trying to buy an Apache helicopter. Nobody's holding up the like.
[00:16:12] Speaker B: So it's, you know, it's sad. Somebody will, there's no point that person.
[00:16:16] Speaker A: But I'm saying the reason why I.
[00:16:18] Speaker B: Say it to the Supreme Court too. Can they arm it with Health Fire.
[00:16:20] Speaker A: Missiles as a serious person? If somebody got up there and said if that was the point people were making it like, oh, you're not a serious person. But for whatever reason they say, okay, when it, when it comes to all these other guns, then it is, it's any arms. The word any is not in there in terms of, but again, that's me looking at it like a lawyer. But nonetheless, for setting the legal part aside, I find it actually counterproductive to try to tie this guns conversation to a situation like Morant, because Morant's issue is one of celebrity and, and, and someone who is well known and a, a representative of an industry, a representative of an organization. Morant is like a CEO doing something like this. You know, like if the CEO of a major company is out, you know, Brand, you know, throwing a gun up and all this other stuff, he would be Treated differently than if just some anonymous person was doing it. And that's kind of how things work. When you are the face of an organization and all these kind of things, then expectations are different from you. And so to me, this is an. His issue was one of more like that. How he's being treated, how it's being dealt with, has to be seen in the context of a person who is the face of an organization. The conversation on whether we should have guns in society shouldn't be about what celebrities do, what, you know, prominent people in businesses do. It should be about what's right for all of us.
[00:17:34] Speaker B: Yeah, no, it's. It's interesting, man. And I think you make a great point about the First Amendment. I think this is where, you know, a lot of people just have situational ethics about what, you know, what, what they, what they. Well, you know, kind of what is their hot issue versus other issues that they aren't as hot about? Well, where they will allow some malleability about, you know, the ability to change certain things over time.
[00:17:57] Speaker A: Where are the people that are protesting the fact that you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater? Where are the First Amendment? What are you doing? Like, nobody's protesting that.
[00:18:04] Speaker B: Yeah. So I think it's a great example. And you know, it's just, you know, it's sad because this issue is one that I think most am Americans. I mean, it's been proven over and over with the different polling and all that, that most Americans are actually on the same page. Something I think high 80s, like 87, 89% of Americans polled seem to, you know, share the same thing. They are fine with the Second Amendment in general, this idea that American culture and Americans were allowed to own guns. But they want to see, you know, the idea of responsible people having guns, like having background checks and, and, and.
[00:18:38] Speaker A: Then it doesn't apply to any weapon you can think of.
[00:18:40] Speaker B: Yeah, maybe having permits for, you know, conceal. And, you know, people having to get training and all that kind of stuff which, you know, is. It seems to be pretty reasonable in today's world, that's all. And especially when you see what's going on. And if you look at some of the stats here because, you know, and I know you'll put in the show notes, the stuff we have from like Pew Research and some of these, you know, well respected organizations that get their stats from, you know, our own government that publishes these things where, you know, between 2019 and 2021, gun deaths among teens and kids under 18 doubled, literally. And you know, it's just interesting to see some of these stats. I mean, I was very even looking at some of this stuff learning, like for example, and I think there's always like I realized that, you know, on all spectrums of let's say our culture and cultural wars, there's people that are willing to listen to other sides and all that and go see, you know, understanding that there's room for a lot of discussion and room for a lot of people's opinions and there's other people who latch on to certain things. And so we've talked a lot about things like the education and all that and the idea of like CRT as a talking point. I've realized for some on the gun who would like to see more gun control and regulation, they focus on things like AR15s, for example, and that becomes just a talking point. And I think that's a mistake because I was looking even in some of the stats, you know, 59% of gun related homicides in the latest numbers that we have, which is 20, 21, were committed by people with revolvers and pistols. And the idea of just focusing on one type of gun to me only is going to increase that gun's gun sales. The idea is that firearms are responsible for a lot of people's deaths. What are we going to do about that as a country and picking on a specific type of firearm? I think all you're going to do is make that one more popular. And it appears to be. They actually said rifles were the least, they were like less than 17% of all murders combined. And then the other thing, Let me.
[00:20:50] Speaker A: Let me, let me react to that because I don't necessarily agree with you in that sense or in that. Because I think with the focus. And when you're Talking about the AR15 is what the focus on there is when they're talking about weapons that aren't used typically for hunting and, or in, in that are not handguns. They're not. Nobody's.
[00:21:06] Speaker B: Well, again, serious people are hunting with handguns either.
[00:21:09] Speaker A: Well, handguns are considered kind of like your, your, your home gun a lot of times. I know, but the, but I'm saying that the distinguishing point in the AR15s is really assault rifles, you know, is the type of things that people are talking about with that, that's one of the more popular assault rifles, but that's really what they're talking about there. And that's just different approaches. Like your approach may be saying, okay, let's look at the types of people who can buy and the types of circumstances when you can buy. And that may be your kind of thought process on more gun control. Somebody else might say, let's look at the types of guns people can buy. My thought really is that reasonable people should, serious people should get together and figure that kind of stuff out. Like, I don't have the prescription of what it is. It's not all guns or all, excuse me, it's not arms. It's not all arms are, should be legal to buy. People shouldn't be out here buying ICBMs. You know, nobody's arguing for that. But then it also should be no arms. Based on the Second Amendment. It shouldn't be no arms. There should be some arms you can do under certain circumstances and whatever and that. And so we need serious people to figure that stuff out. That's the downside of not having a working, you know, legislative body of government. I've seen recently Minnesota put some stuff in, you know, which again are these common sense types of things. But go ahead. I know you had a second part.
[00:22:21] Speaker B: Yeah, no, I mean, the other part is really, because my issue with that is just because, number one, there's approximately 16 million AR15s in the United States. So you're not going to get rid of them. There's just too many. Right. And the second thing is by misidentifying something like that, that people, because me and you both go shoot guns, I like trap shooting and I go to the range with my buddies and all that. And I do think people that would like to see more gun regulation for those that don't, I think they should go and spend more time in some of these, you know, just go explore a gun club or something or a range. Because you gotta understand it's a different culture. So when you, when you focus on one gun, like an assault rifle or specifically the AR15, all you're gonna do is give the people who are in that culture more of a feeling that they're, that they need to go buy more of these things. Cause people are gonna take them away. Instead of like you said, like. So let's just talk about why is our culture here. And I think what I said earlier, and I actually would like to get your opinion on this because in preparing for today, I realized that it's interesting that the second Amendment was coming more from a culture of collectivism, right? Like saying, hey, look, we need these arms to actually protect ourselves as a nation. And we want to. At the time, the spirit, like we talked about was for every able bodied man to be able to participate in defending said nation or said state. Now we've, we've kind of somehow in the last couple generations become an individualistic, like hyper individual. Like it's. I need my second amendment to protect me. The Castle doctrine, stand your ground. It's all about me fighting off the rest of the world. And that's why I want to pass it back to you. Like, first, how we get here. And second, like, why is it that every. That's kind of what I felt like when, if we go back to John Moran, like, he's trying to show it like this insecurity, like, oh, I'm a man because I got all this stuff.
[00:24:08] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:24:09] Speaker B: And I'm just thinking like, whether I.
[00:24:10] Speaker A: Got a gun or not along with that though. I mean, that's what I mean.
[00:24:13] Speaker B: Like, how do we get here with that culture? That's why.
[00:24:15] Speaker A: But I think it's, it's just a natural evolution. You go back to westerns in the 40s and 50s or 50s and 60s, and the gun was, the big man had the big gun and all that kind of stuff. Like that stuff was tied with masculinity back then. I mean, I think now here's, here's the thing. There's context to the second Amendment, but the words are what the words are. And so, and that's kind of the, that's my view of the Constitution is that like it's. With any of the amendments, it's like you can argue the context, but ultimately it says what it says. It doesn't say any arms. It does, but it says you can have that. Their rights to arms is there. So whether at the time, if they wanted that to be tied to people who were in the, who were in the militia, they should have said that. Yeah, part of a well regulated militia. People who are in the militia can have the guns. Like they didn't, you know, so I think we're stuck with that language. And you know, I'm a person that, you know, is a gun owner. And I think that, you know, that's fine, you know, but I do think that I'm not into the extreme on either side. I think that there's common sense stuff we can do that works for a society where. And the flexibility. I'll give you this, you know, when you talk about the different cultures and stuff, what works for a society may not be the same across the entire spectrum of the society. Like what works in a huge big city may not be the same as what works in rural areas. And that's you know, again, that's why we have representatives to figure that stuff out if they're doing their job and not just constantly.
[00:25:37] Speaker B: Well, it's interesting is, I mean, and you're absolutely right. Like I think it was last year in 2022, the state of New York did have some legislation around concealed weapons. Yeah. And the Supreme Court struck that down, which I think is again, not the idea of limited and small government. And I think it's an interesting point. If you have a city like Manhattan and kind of 18 million people on top of each other within, let's say a 30 mile radius. Right. That's going to be different than states like Idaho or Wisconsin or Michigan where you have a lot of open land and people are used to having guns.
[00:26:16] Speaker A: If you need police help, it's 30 miles away or something like that.
[00:26:19] Speaker B: But also there's just a different etiquette and culture around guns in those states because it's just, you know, like you said before, they're hunters. There's this.
And let's be honest, in some of the bigger metropolitan areas of this country, a lot of people with firearms are criminals. So I just think that there's.
[00:26:36] Speaker A: Oh, that's a heavy, heavy thing. No, no, go ahead.
[00:26:39] Speaker B: But I'm not saying that everybody. I'm just saying that you're going to have a higher concentration of people that are doing the wrong thing with firearms. And if you got 10 million people, 5 million in the city versus if you got a whole state that has 1 million people in a whole state that is, you know, 500 miles across. So. Yeah, that's, that's just really what, that's what I mean. I think that's why I'm following up on what you're saying.
[00:27:01] Speaker A: This is what I mean though, as far as how we just need serious people to kind of.
[00:27:04] Speaker B: Well, that's, that's why I'm following up on you is that no one's talking like that. Like we got such a big and country and diverse and I mean diverse culturally, not racially or anything like that. Meaning and how people view guns in the different pockets of American culture and that we should be flexible and malleable around that. And one of the questions I wanted to throw to you actually, which I found interesting in reviewing today is, you know, I really like to get your thoughts on the why, because I don't really know why. So there's been, I mean, when me and you were kids, it wasn't normal for, let's say a politician running for U.S. congress or U.S. senate or governor of their state to be sitting there with a bunch of firearms in their video, in their campaign ads and all that. Right. And I was amazed.
In.
Or was it? I think it was in the recent 2022 election cycle, they identified at least 104 ads from candidates with firearms. And it was interesting. They.
It says more than half feature sniper rifles, blowtorches, or assault weapons similar to those used in the Valde. I was like, damn, blowtorches. This guy, the Mandalorian up in here running for office. That's pretty co.
So and then, and then it says at least 11 level threats against the government. And I thought that was funny. I was like, oh, hold on. Aren't you asking us to vote for you to go to the government or you want to. You want to blow it up with a blowtorch? And it said five promoted AR15 Tommy gun or 50 caliber sniper rifle giveaways. I thought, man, how come I don't live in one of those states? I wouldn't mind getting a giving.
I want to get a tommy gun or a Barrett.50 cal. Come on.
[00:28:47] Speaker A: Well, let me, let me say this.
[00:28:48] Speaker B: And so, so I just want to finish on this. Is that what, what do you think? Why do you think it is? Because when I read this and I've seen some of the videos and commercials, I remember seeing them during the political season. I feel like that is also was a, was a show of this individuality, like how, like come, come and take it. You know, that attitude, like, you know, I'm going to go, I'm going to go defeat all the, you know, all my foes and all the enemies of whoever I think are my enemies with this one, you know, firearms.
[00:29:17] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:29:18] Speaker B: What are your thoughts on all that?
[00:29:19] Speaker A: No, man, I don't think that's new. I think that's just part of the American, you know, kind of thing. Like the frontiersman out there with his gun taking on all in nature and so forth. And I think even the statement that, that we, that probably didn't happen 30 or 40 years ago, we may just not know, you know, I don't know. Like we didn't have social media. I remember showing us the craziest.
[00:29:38] Speaker B: No, but I remember watching political commercials. I didn't see that.
[00:29:41] Speaker A: Well, but you, where were you though? You know, like you were in places again, the different cultures. Like if you were in Idaho, you might have saw something different. Or if you're in Alabama, you might saw something different. And so, you know, and then if you go back even further, I'M sure it was normal, you know, like people. Well, maybe it wasn't commercials, but you go back to different times in history and people were like, hey, yeah, I'm the sheriff, I'm running for office. I got my gun right here, and all that kind of stuff. So, I mean, the obsession with firearms has definitely been an American thing the whole time. I think the needs have just kind of changed as you have a more urban society and as you have a society, apparently there's more on edge. One of the things you sent me now is about how, you know, gun deaths are up. You know, like this is something that's shooting back up and has been shooting up for a while, but it really jumped over the past few years. And so everyone's on. Yeah, more people on edge, apparently. And the gun access is as easy as it ever has been, you know, and then more people living around each other. So again, this is why. This is my, like, my point is that we need serious people to figure out what can. What we can do that works. Understanding that what works in one place may not be necessarily what we have to do everywhere, but we need to have some type of framework, some type of approach that tries to address the fact we shouldn't have problems like this that are just getting worse and we're just at paralysis. And that's actually where I want to take this conversation to, because I want to get into that, like setting aside, you know, whether this is the right time, you know, which. And some would say anytime is the right time to have a guns in society conversation, which I said before, I don't think the J. Morant thing is a good time to do that. But what about this moment we're in right now where we have mass shootings again all the time, and you gave the numbers overwhelming public support for some measures, you know, in terms of gun control and. But we have governmental paralysis, at least on the federal level. But again, we saw just recently Minnesota put some stuff in, you know, that. So it's not everywhere paralysis, but like the conversation nationally seems to be a non starter.
[00:31:37] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, I think what happens is there's things like there are other things in our political culture, whether it be abortion or, you know, affirmative action or other topics that can be culturally sensitive. Right. That there's litmus tests. And unfortunately, the idea of certain approaches culturally to firearms became a litmus test in politics. And so I think that could be seen as part of it, is that the debate really entered our political sphere and people just take sides, like to do with everything else.
And I think the other part is that, yeah, I think through gerrymandering, lobbying, you know, there's other industries, whether it was tobacco a long time ago, and I'm sure we can name others now, but let's just stick on what we're talking about, that the gun manufacturers themselves have a very large influence in Washington. So I think it's one of those examples where the public overwhelmingly supports certain things that I think most average people wouldn't see as too draconian. Like, we're talking about background checks and trying to make sure people that have mental illnesses and things maybe don't have access, easy access to firearms. You know, it's very difficult, I guess, for politicians to vote that way because they're scared of either being losing in their next election or with, you know, the lobbyists coming after them. That's my only guess because I can't see why else they would not pay attention to something that 90% of Americans seem to want.
[00:33:06] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, that would seem to be a winner. You know, like if you could do something that 80 some percent of Americans would want, it would seem like, yeah, let me do that, you know, but, yeah, it's a difficult nut to crack, so to speak. Like, it almost is. So it's such an issue that you're like, well, how can those numbers be right? How can the polling be right? If, like, what scenario would someone be on or would be. Would such a critical mass people be unwilling to do something that purportedly so many people favor? Some of that, though, remember, is just the population distribution in our country. Like, our country is, you know, we have many more people in urban areas, you know, than we do in rural areas. And so on balance, you know, like, you might have a lot of people that say, hey, yeah, yeah, we got, we got to do something like that. But based on states, like, you have a state that has, you know, several states, you know, less than a million people. And so they're. When you look at 330 million people, they're a very small percentage. And so the political power may not be like organized in a way due to gerrymandering as well as you brought up, but also just the distribution. It's a rural lean, a rural bent because of the way two senators in every state, so Wyoming and California have the same number of representative representatives in the, well, senators in the Senate. But ultimately this is. If this was the only thing that our government wasn't able to address right now, and I'm talking about the federal government, then it would be. I think it would stand out more. But it seems like there's most things right now, you know, our government is fairly paralyzed with. And so unfortunately, I think this might just be a symptom of a greater problem.
[00:34:36] Speaker B: Yeah, no, I was going to say the same thing. I think guns. And that's why, like I say, for people that wish to see more gun control and that kind of stuff, they should really go into the gun culture and learn and talk to people. Because a lot of people, they genuinely feel like the gun is their last barrier between them and anarchy. And they really do feel that if, I mean, even though most people don't train with guns enough to use them properly, right. But they feel like if somebody walks into their house, they're going to be like, Arnold Schwarzenegger was in the movie Commando. They're really going to be able to have.
[00:35:13] Speaker A: But here's my question for this. Like, you gave numbers that said that 87% of Americans, you know, favor, you know, basic general type gun control. So how many people are there? There are. You're saying there's a lot of people like that. How many people are there? If 80% of some. 80 some percent of people are like, no, we're good with gun control.
[00:35:28] Speaker B: I don't know, we got, I'd say, I'd assume 80, 90% of Americans would say that they value freedom of speech and the government not to be out there regulating speech. But we live in a state where the governor is out there banning books, right?
[00:35:43] Speaker A: I don't know that we get 80 or 90% off freedom.
[00:35:45] Speaker B: Well, I don't know, maybe you're right, but he's not getting a lot of pushback from all of our citizens.
[00:35:49] Speaker A: If you ask him in the abstract, they'd say, yeah, yeah, of course. And they say, well, are you good with the governor banning books? They're like, yeah, yeah, of course. And it's like, no.
[00:35:55] Speaker B: And I think that's another thing. I'm sure with many people in the abstract, it sounds good to, you know, have background checks on people that are crazy or what are mentally ill. But then what happens is once someone actually says, okay, now I'm going to come in office and I'm going to be a champion of legislating this, right? Then I think what happens is we go to our fight or flight. This goes back to elephant and the rider, right? And so what happens is people are easily knocked off their kind of abstract agreement with the statement because someone else will come from the other side and say, look, that's a slippery slope. You know, if they, if they just do the background check, next thing you know they're going to take out away this and then it's that. And, and because people will react more on fear than, than anything else. They're there. They become a deer in a headlight and just say, okay, well then let's not do anything.
[00:36:47] Speaker A: So. Yeah, so. So you're saying that they did the people who oppose gun control got this down to a science. They know how to tickle.
[00:36:53] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. That's why I think it's really about the people who desire more gun control. Just got to be more cross creative. I mean it's just, just having to say that's why my issue with naming a specific gun like the AR15, I think it's all a waste of time. I think they need to get a different strategy, period.
[00:37:07] Speaker A: Interesting. Well, no, I, I think. And I, I think we can close up this topic, but there's one thing I want to say because you made a good point and you kind of asked me and I didn't get to it directly, but I want to get to it directly because it was a really good question. As far as the individualism and how it keeps going and how that feeds this gun issue, it feeds a lot of issues that we have. You know, this hyper individualism that seems to be progressing. And I mean people have looked at this kind of thing. But the things I've seen that I find to be fairly persuasive goes into that we feel like we need each other less. Like we feel like we're our own entity more the way society is now. We are all still very codependent. Like I may feel like with my iPhone and my wifi and my. I don't need anybody to cook me dinner. I don't need anybody. I don't need a car. I can just like. But you're still very interdependent, but you're not interdependent with the people who are around you versus 100 years ago where the people who are around you, you saw every day how much you needed them for everything. Now it's all anonymous. So I think just the way our society has evolved and making us feel like it may be a false sense, but it makes us feel like we don't really need our neighbor. We don't really need our, you know, our co worker. You know, it's kind of like, yo, we're all just trains passing in the night. You know, just stay out of my way and I'll stay Out of yours type of thing. And so I think that. That, you know, that. That in our culture has fed this, but it is a dangerous mix. You know, when we start talking about the Second Amendment, when we start talking about guns and everything like that, this hyper individualism, because we're all here together, you know, so if all of us are walking around like, fuck you, I don't need you, you know, bad things can happen. So.
[00:38:41] Speaker B: But that's what's happening. Right?
And yeah, you know what? The last thing, and I wanted to say this, it'll just be 10 seconds, just more for everyone to think about. What I found sad and fascinating, and we don't talk about it enough, is 53% of all homicides, gun deaths, let's put it that way. In 2021, which is the highest year on record for gun deaths in the United States, 53% were suicides.
[00:39:07] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:39:08] Speaker B: So it's another conversation we're not really having in this country, which is, why are so many people taking their own lives? And that keeps going up. So that's. I'll just leave it at that. That's another show. Right.
[00:39:18] Speaker A: But again. And that's one of those things that you have to be careful. Like, that's a conversation we should have. But then you have to just, like with the Jama rant conversation, you have to be careful mixing those conversations together, because then a lot of time, whatever point you're trying to get to in the suicides may get lost.
[00:39:31] Speaker B: Because that's why it's different than a homicide. Just, it's.
[00:39:36] Speaker A: No, it's just something of note. But the second topic we wanted to go into today, Jim Brown, you know, the late Jim Brown, who. He passed a few days back and, you know, he was a mountain of a man, you know, through the 20th century. First as a, you know, a football player. You know, some consider him the best football player of all time.
Actor, you know, groundbreaking actor, you know, not necessarily the most. You know, like the most expressive or something like that, but an actor who broke through barriers, you know, in terms of what African Americans could do. An activist through the whole time. I mean, he is. You. You can read, you know, all of the things that the guy's done. And it's a long list, you know, but also a guy who's been, you know, tied to domestic violence, you know, things like that, you know, with women. And so, you know, the thing with. With Jim Brown that I wanted to get to just.
You don't have to come here to get kind of a rundown of how amazing of a, of a man he was in terms of all the things he accomplished. But I've, it's been interesting to me to see how people have tried to navigate through. Okay, well, his legacy isn't without blemishes. So how can we talk about how significant of the things that he did do and like how much courage the guy had and how many all that stuff and not shortchange the other side or not say, oh, we're not worried about domestic violence against women and so forth. Especially in this day and age when that's something maybe 20 years ago it would be less of something people worried about. So you know, just your thoughts, you know, on how our society, I mean first, you know, anything you want to say on Jim Brown, you know, but also just on how our society can or does honor individuals who are transcendent, truly transcendent, but also not unblemished.
[00:41:14] Speaker B: Yeah, it's good. You know, I appreciate you bringing this as a topic idea because you know, I'm not a football guy so of course I know who Jim Brown was because he's that famous. But it's like unless you're that famous in football, I don't know who you are. You know what I mean?
I know I'm a basketball guy. I know more about baseball and 60s and 70s than I do even about football. So for me reading about him, like, I mean again, I know I like football as a sport, I just don't follow it and the players and the records and all that. But to see that he got. He's the only player to average over 100 rushing yards per game. Per game.
[00:41:53] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:41:54] Speaker B: 10 year career, I was like, wow, that's a beast right there.
[00:41:57] Speaker A: Like. Yeah, yeah.
[00:41:57] Speaker B: Like you're saying there's certain records that. And the reason why that type of numbers, you know.
[00:42:02] Speaker A: Well, let me tell you this. The reason why that's one of those kind of records that may never be broken is because it's per game. Like they played less games then.
[00:42:08] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:42:08] Speaker A: And you know, like so his, his total, his cumulative stats have been surpassed. But, but even the per game stuff is like people can't touch his per game stuff.
[00:42:17] Speaker B: But even like, I mean he just lived in a day when guys were just, I mean, I guess there was a lot more time. There's a lot less distraction than life. I mean the guy that, the fact that in at Syracuse he was, I think he played on the basketball team then he was like the top player in the country in lacrosse.
[00:42:33] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:42:34] Speaker B: And he was so good that they actually changed the rules about how you can carry the stick when you're running in lacrosse. Because of him, personal, personally, like that's how good he was. Like that they had to change the rules because he was that good. And, and that he's also in the lacrosse hall of fame is just one of the greatest players. Like I had no idea that he had all that. The process and then like you said to learn about the movies and kind of the fact he retired at his prime at 30 to go pursue, you know, acting and the civil rights and all that. It's just interesting story. And so like you're saying he's a very complex man because then I saw his MeToo stuff that he'd never get away with today that I saw in 1973 he proposed to an 18 year old. I was like, I looked at the math when he was born. I like that guy was 37. I don't think that'll fly today because I mean if she's 18, I mean he started seeing her when she was upset before she was 18.
[00:43:22] Speaker A: He didn't just beat her.
[00:43:25] Speaker B: He might have started at 15 or 16. If he's a proposal by the time she's 18. So I think it's like you said, right. It's just interesting that like you joked before in the last segment where you said they didn't have social media back then. Right. We don't know what some people were saying. And it's another thing that right now we see celebrities like these guys and we get their entire brain soup every day in social media. So we, we can pick at him and think that some of them act funny and crazy. But you look at this guy's life, I mean this guy had a. Definitely an issue with domestic abuse and with just physical. I mean he was arrested seven times for like assault and battery. Well, that's a lot in your lifetime to be arrested seven times when, especially when you're a prominent person like that. So yeah, just as cuz that tells you he did a lot more times than seven. I mean seven is the time when it probably got bad enough that, you know, cops showed up and had to do something about it. But the fact he was a celebrity, it probably, they probably got called a lot more times than seven times. We can, we can see how it goes.
[00:44:27] Speaker A: Yeah, exactly. That's not the, you know, the person. So. No, I mean, I think you're right. Like that's, there was an issue there, you know, like, and it's, it's always difficult to wrestle with that, because, you know, you don't. You wonder, are you letting somebody off the hook when you only talk about the good, you know, or, you know, something like that. And people are. I mean, we have a running joke between you, you and I. You know, this might have been a podcast. We did not. It might not even been on call, like I see it. It might have been, you know, it was a real long time ago, and we were talking about, you know, just how people, you know, make mistakes. People. Nobody's perfect. And you. You drop the gem of all gems that sometimes people are human beings too, you know, and I've quoted you on that many times. But, you know, I think about it in that context in the sense that ultimately these things, these demons or these things that he was doing wrong, we know about them. And so therefore, you know, it's like we have to wrestle with, well, how do we deal with. Because his contributions were. Were transcendent, like what he did, civil rights era and so forth. The doors he opened, the barriers he broke through are, you know, it. It's. It's one of a kind, you know, like, he hits him. It's. It's Ali. It's. I mean, it's these guys that are like giants in that field. People that put their livelihoods on the line, athletes that put their livelihoods on the line to try to make society better for everyone else. Which, you know, people don't do that anymore. You know, granted their life, people make a lot more money now than they did back then. But nonetheless, to me, it's one of those things actually, that if you don't try to put people on the pedestal of flawlessness, of perfection, then I think you can deal with it better. Like, just because we don't know about someone's demons or the things that they did wrong, doesn't mean that they didn't have any. So if we. And this is difficult because humans, we like to. We. We love our idols, you know, whether it be political or whether it be sports or whether it would be, you know, anything.
But if we work to. To just understand that people are human beings, you know, like, and that they're going to have things that they're going to do, things they're not proud of, sometimes they're going to hope. But hopefully people continue to grow, people continue to learn from the things that they've done. But you still can look at people who change society and, you know, tip the cap or, you know, give them a bow and say, look, you change society, we're Thankful for that. We're grateful for that. You know, and your, your contributions. You also shouldn't shortchange that part.
[00:46:43] Speaker B: No, I know. And I think, you know, I think one thing I got out of learning about this guy is I think, you know, we're going to be forced to. I think with the transparency we now have in kind of today's world, we're just like, we keep talking about the Internet and everyone's got a cell phone camera, can catch people just randomly on the street doing stuff that. I think maybe it's a good thing in the long run, right, that, that we'll learn to treat celebrities and people that are famous less with kind of an idolatry lens, let's say, and more just accepting that they are also human beings that can be flawed. Right. And then maybe they're.
[00:47:17] Speaker A: They're unlikely. My thought, actually.
[00:47:19] Speaker B: No, I'm not saying, like, well, let.
[00:47:21] Speaker A: Me say, let me throw this at you because I want your reaction to this. I think that'll still happen. But what I think it'll just be more, it'll be more partisan. It'll be more pocketed. Like, you'll have your, you hear this term stands. You have your stands. And so those people will see you could do no wrong. And then you'll also have a pocket of people that are like, nah, that down you. We just won't have universal figures necessarily. Like, imagine how, like, if John F. Kennedy was around, you know, today, you know, like in going through, doing the stuff he was doing back then, you know, he wouldn't necessarily be looked at in the same way if, if the public knew all the things that's going on. And so if he's in, he might.
[00:47:54] Speaker B: Be facing a case in the Southern District of New York about paying off Marilyn Monroe.
[00:48:02] Speaker A: Exactly.
[00:48:04] Speaker B: Let's see the defense of President Trump on that one. Because I'm sure, yeah, he's not the first powerful man that led a country that's sitting there trying to cover up that he was banging chicks on the side.
You're right. Kennedy. If we had social media back when Kennedy was president, it would just be more pocketed now.
[00:48:23] Speaker A: So I think that's more of the thing. What's your thought on that? Because I think people are always like, states are going to be there.
[00:48:28] Speaker B: Look, who knows? Maybe I'm just being utopian here, wishing for everyone to just be able to see people for kind of not, not treating animals right. And just accept that they're, you know, everyone is. Even people that are great in something are still Normal in a lot of other things. Right. And kind of just regular. Like, Jim Brown's a great example. I mean, unfortunately, the guy seemed to be a domestic abuser, but he was a great football player. So, you know, you got to square that.
[00:48:55] Speaker A: I put the civil rights activists and that stuff way above the football, honestly, I mean.
[00:48:59] Speaker B: Well, here's. I wanted to speak on a couple of things.
[00:49:01] Speaker A: Credit or to be fair, you know, like, it does seem that later in life that that was an issue that didn't come up and that he even spoke against. You know, like now, you know, it's in his way. But something that continued all the way through.
[00:49:13] Speaker B: No, I was going to say it was much later because I was arrested in 1997 for smashing his wife's car windows out with a shovel.
[00:49:24] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:49:24] Speaker B: And then refused to go to a domestic violence thing to get serve time instead. Yeah. And he served three months in jail because he was like, screwed at him. So I'm saying he was 63 years old.
That's already a little bit later in life. I was like, maybe when he was 85, he was talking about, I shouldn't have done that. I would think by 63, you figure out, like, not to behave that way.
[00:49:46] Speaker A: It's better than never doing it, you know, never. Never figuring it out.
[00:49:49] Speaker B: A couple of things just before we wrap it up, I wanted to decide that I found interesting. So in 60, I mean, this is stuff you're talking about with some of the civil rights stuff. They had the Cleveland Summit, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul Jabbar. And it was on behalf of Muhammad Ali supporting Ali. What's interesting, again, we see some of this recent stuff in our culture now, whether it be Colin Kaepernick a few years ago or the reaction of some post, George Floyd. And it says here, and I'll quote the page I'm reading, because Ali, meaning Muhammad Ali, was a pariah in American society at the time because of his opposition to the Vietnam War. And Frieza entered the draft, his boxing license had been revoked, and he faced up to five years in prison. So what I'm saying, number one, is he was actually really an activist. Muhammad Ali, that wasn't as talked about, you know, later in his life. But what I thought of is, you know, I'm visiting Louisville, Kentucky this week, and I flew into Muhammad Ali Airport.
[00:50:48] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:50:49] Speaker B: And what I found is when we're looking at Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, John Brown, these guys were all pariahs at one point.
[00:50:56] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:50:56] Speaker B: The Great Society looked at them as agitators and people that were disrupting normal civil behavior and all that. And they all died as heroes in America.
[00:51:05] Speaker A: Yep.
[00:51:06] Speaker B: So it's an. It's another contrast of how long some of these things, you know, the kind of arc of progress. And then a couple other things I found interesting. One was he was very economically driven and aware from the 1960s. So he had an organization he developed. And he said Here in a 1968 Ebony interview, this would have been during the height of the civil rights stuff. Quote, we've got to stop wasting all our energy and money marching and picketing and going things like camping in Washington in our poor people's campaign. We've got to get off the emotional stuff and do something that will bring about real change. We've got to have industries and commercial enterprises and build our own sustaining economic base. Then we can face white folks man to man, and we can deal. And he supported Richard Nixon and endorsed him in the 1968 election because Nixon specifically was on a platform of supporting black capitalism. So just funny how you don't hear these things a lot, but it's just interesting. And then going back to the deep state and to. And to the weaponization stuff, in 2003, files were declassified that showed the FBI and the Secret Service and local police departments were all monitoring his black economic union and basically attempting to smear him. And again, like, we've talked about the words when you're just trying to say something's bad. They, they. They smeared the group as a source of communism and radical Muslim extremism. And I'm just thinking, like, so that's no different than calling someone CRT today or. Or, yeah, Marxist and all that. Like, hold on. And it's funny because you and I understand in black Americans and black American culture, especially a guy like him, okay, them guys have nothing to do with communism. And he's a freaking Christian. He got nothing to do with radical Muslim. But they knew that if they. If they make accusations, they're trigger words. Exactly. So I found that interesting that, you know, the government was, you know.
[00:53:06] Speaker A: No, that's the deep state. You know, it's always the people that talk the most about the deep state. You know, like, the deep state's never looking at them.
[00:53:12] Speaker B: I know.
[00:53:14] Speaker A: So. But we're glad that they're bringing people's attention to it. Hopefully they talk.
[00:53:19] Speaker B: But for some reason, I feel like the Congressional Weaponization Committee won't go back and look at that one. They weren't like, I get this feeling. Yeah, they might not, no.
[00:53:26] Speaker A: But I mean, just to your point, though, like, a lot of, you know, and then you didn't even mention the. In the 90s, you know, with what he was doing with the. The gang culture in the prison.
[00:53:36] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:53:36] Speaker A: Trying to teach people, like, you know, try how to be better, you know, and so forth. So, I mean, this is a guy that definitely put his energy where his mouth is in terms of trying to make a better society. And so ultimately, you just got to take it at that, you know, like, this is a person who did a lot to try to make society better. Wasn't perfect. He did things that, you know, were wrong. And, you know, and then you. You just. You take. You. You. People can hold multiple thoughts in their head at one time. And so if people make you do that, then that's how it is again. Adult idolatry, though, is not going anywhere. They worried about. People worried. Worried about idolatry, and they warned about it in the Bible. And people still do it. People still did it then.
[00:54:09] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:54:10] Speaker A: You know, so it's going to be there.
[00:54:11] Speaker B: But didn't Moses get mad after he spent that 40 days in the mountain? He came back and they were worshiping the calf, Right? That was the story.
[00:54:18] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:54:19] Speaker B: It works, man. Like, 3,000 years ago, it was bad. It's still bad today. But people do it.
[00:54:23] Speaker A: People do it. People do it. You know, they put their. Put their leaders on T shirts, you know, their political leaders on T shirts.
[00:54:28] Speaker B: Shooting guns and put them on flags. What about that?
[00:54:31] Speaker A: Flags. Yeah, yeah. Idolatry doesn't go anywhere, man. So we just hopefully, you know, like, we can all keep a level head and appreciate the sacrifices, though, that people have made before us while also looking to the future and trying to continue those legacies on. So we appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Call. Like I Said it. Subscribe to the podcast Rate it. Review us, tell us what you think, and until next time, I'm James Keys.
[00:54:52] Speaker B: I'm tuned to Lana.
[00:54:54] Speaker A: All right, we'll talk to you next time.
