Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

New Bill Recognizes Out-of-State Concealed Carry Permits in DC—for Lawmakers AND Citizens

June 22, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Typically in the wake of a high-profile shooting like the recent attack on GOP congressman, legislation talk about gun control ramps up. Although that certainly was the case (because you never let a crisis go to waste), the shooting was a huge wake up call to Republican legislators --- and even some across the aisle.

Tuesday on radio, Glenn was joined by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) who will introduce a bill that goes the opposite way to expand gun rights.

"My bill would make the District of Columbia honor your concealed carry permit from any state --- and this is for anybody, not just members of Congress --- who comes and visits Washington, D.C.," Massie said.

TAKE ACTION: Call Speaker Ryan to Urge Support of New Concealed Carry Legislation in DC

According to Rep. Massie, over three-quarters of the states already offer reciprocity among the states.

"Washington, DC, is an anomaly, and it's an unsafe spot. Because not only can members of Congress not defend themselves, members of the public can't defend themselves here," Massie said.

The congressman also addressed the urgency of passing his bill as written, with reciprocity for both legislators and citizens.

"Here's the problem with doing it just for members of Congress: then the urgency to restore your right to self-defense goes down. And I'm seeing this with our leadership right now. The people who are in charge of whether this bill comes to the floor or not are the same people who have had their own personal security detail, which amounts to less than one percent of the House of Representatives," Massie explained.

If you would like to respectfully voice your support for Rep. Massie's bill, call Speaker Ryan's office at (202) 225-0600 and urge him to bring the bill to the House floor for a vote.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: Hello, America. We want to introduce you again to Congressman Thomas Massie from Kentucky. He is proposing a -- a really good change to our gun laws. One that I think that we can all get behind and help him. I want you to hear why he's proposing it and what it means. We begin there, right now.

(music)

GLENN: Now, you're going to hear things like Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton -- she's from DC -- she says, "This bill flies in the face of the calls for unity."

What Congress is talking about is, how are we going to protect ourselves? And, of course, there are some that say, we want to be able to carry a gun no matter where we go because we're congressmen.

Thomas Massie says, "I've got a better idea." And he's joining us now. Hello, Congressman, how are you?

THOMAS: I'm doing well, Glenn. Thanks for having me on to talk about this bill. This shooting was a real wake-up call, I think, not just for congressmen, but for all Americans.

GLENN: So, first of all, how is everybody that was involved in the shooting? Do you have an update? I know that Scalise was upgraded to I think fair, or was it good yesterday?

THOMAS: Fair. And, yes, he's doing much better. He's taking visitors, in fact. But we've been encouraged not to visit him because he's such a gregarious guy, he'd probably take everybody that visited him. So we have to restrain ourselves here because we want to reach out to him. But he's recovering. It's going to be a long recovery. There's going to be rehabilitation to walk and whatnot.

GLENN: So there's a couple things now that I've been reading that Congress needs to look at. And one of them is, what would have happened if 30 congressmen died? This is one thing that the Constitution doesn't cover. How do we -- how do we get you guys, you know, replaced if you are killed?

And the second thing is this -- this idea that maybe congressmen need more protection or need to be allowed to carry a gun.

THOMAS: Well, let me respond to something that you mentioned about my colleague from Washington, DC. If she's saying this flies in the face of calls for unity, the fact of the matter is, this unites the Republican Party. It may divide the Democrat Party. Because I can tell you, there are members on the other side of the aisle that would vote for this bill if we could get it on the floor today. So I think it actually works across the aisle.

GLENN: So why can't we -- we control the House and the Senate and the White House. Why can't we get it on the floor of the House today?

THOMAS: Well, you know, there are some members of Congress -- and there are very pro-gun members of Congress, who want to bring up legislation only to protect congressmen. Now, listen, those are good ideas. And those members of Congress support the Second Amendment. But here's the problem with doing it just for members of Congress: Then the urgency to restore your right to self-defense goes down. And I'm seeing this with our leadership right now. It -- the people who are in charge of whether this bill comes to the floor or not, are the same people who have had their own personal security detail, which amounts to less than 1 percent of the House of Representatives. By the way, very quickly, just so we all know what we're talking about, my bill would make the District of Columbia honor your concealed carry permit from any state -- and this is for anybody, not just members of Congress -- who comes and visits Washington, DC.

Over three-quarters of the states already offer reciprocity among the states. Washington, DC, is an anomaly. And it's an unsafe spot. Because not only can members of Congress not defend themselves. Members of the public can't defend themselves here.

GLENN: So I know we're talking about Washington, DC, but --

THOMAS: Yep.

GLENN: And if I can look a gift horse in the mouth --

THOMAS: Yeah.

GLENN: -- why are we not talking about this for the entire country, that you -- you know, you got to be able to honor other states? If I have to honor somebody's marriage certificate, why don't they have to honor my concealed weapon permit?

THOMAS: Well, the argument that some people will put up about the -- the Capitol, you know, US Congress telling states that they have honor other state's permits, there's some people that argue the Tenth Amendment, you have to balance that against the Second Amendment.

GLENN: Sure. But they're not doing that with marriage license.

THOMAS: Yeah, exactly. And I would love to see us be able to carry in all states. But the beauty of my bill, Glenn, is that there is no conflict here. There is no legislator for Washington, DC. There is no governor for Washington, DC. Because the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that the US Congress could write the laws for the city where they had to meet, in just this exact instance, so that they could come here and be safe and so that there would be arbitrary laws that kept our government from functioning. So this is constitutional. The Constitution says that we write the laws for DC.

GLENN: Correct.

THOMAS: Like you just said, if you got a House that's Republican, a Senate that's Republican, and a president that's Republican, and you have clear jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, why does it have the worst gun control laws in the country?

GLENN: So what is the response to your bill so far?

THOMAS: So far, among the membership here, it's been overwhelming. Yesterday, I presented my idea to the entire G.O.P. conference, and before I could sit down, they erupted in applause. And I had members who are not members of the Freedom Caucus come up to me and say, "I know I'm not very conservative, but I sure as heck support your bill." They literally said that to me.

And it's important, but I think our leadership is not responding well to it. They say it's not the right time. I say, this is the exact right time.

GLENN: When is it going to be better? When will it be better? When 30 congressmen were killed?

THOMAS: It's never going to be better. This is urgent. In fact, I have 44 co-sponsors for this bill already, and I just introduced it last Thursday. And I'll probably pick up another four or five today, cosponsors. And I'm telling you, Glenn, if this went to the floor, Democrats would vote for it. Three years ago, I offered legislation that would defund Washington, DC,'s gun control laws. Ironically, I was able to get that to the floor under John Boehner, and Paul Ryan blocked it last summer. He said it wasn't the right time last summer to offer the legislation. But when I got it to the floor under John Boehner, 20 Democrats voted to defund Washington DC's gun control laws.

GLENN: Jeez.

THOMAS: And there was no imperative then like there is now. This is a wake-up call.

GLENN: Okay. So, Thomas, what do you -- I have to tell you, I'm so sick of hearing, "Call your congressman." Call (sound effect). Because they don't care. If you think Paul Ryan gives a flying crap about you and your gun rights, you know -- I mean, how -- again, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me my entire 53 years of life, well, I'm just -- I should be locked in an institution.

So make the case that I should lift a finger to call.

THOMAS: Well, I think, whoever is listening to this, it's probably not your member of Congress who is the problem. It's the leadership, who is preventing this bill from coming to the floor.

And I know I sound like a broken record, but I am going to say you should call the Speaker's office and say, "We know you have protection for yourself. What about the other members of Congress and the rest of the public? Don't think this issue will go away. The next time it could be much worse."

GLENN: All right. So if we call the Speaker's -- do you have -- somebody look up the stupid Speaker's phone number so we can give it out. If we call the Speaker, we specifically need to ask for your bill to be introduced, don't we? Otherwise, they're going to come up with one that just allows them to carry guns, which is a horrible idea.

THOMAS: The reason that idea probably won't work, just to allow members of Congress -- not only does it not restore your Second Amendment rights here in the Capitol City, just to extend it to Congress, it reduces the urgency of some members of Congress. Not all members of Congress.

GLENN: Correct.

THOMAS: But once they feel safe, their urgency to -- to protect your right to protect yourself will go down. Just like it has for the Speaker.

GLENN: Oh, but I will tell you, I mean, they don't seem to care. You know, they did that with health care. And a lot of the Republicans are in on that. They get all the special deals. They get everything. Screw the American people. I got it.

I mean, it sounds like what they will do.

THOMAS: Yep. Well...

GLENN: Sorry, Thomas. I don't mean to take the wind out of your sails. Because I really appreciate you. I really appreciate what you're introducing. And I want to help. And, yes, I will call the Speaker. I mean --

PAT: It's frustrating because we've been so beaten down.

GLENN: It's frustrating.

THOMAS: There's not much wind to take out of my sails. I'm here in the swamp, trying to swim among these creatures.

(laughter)

THOMAS: I can't even get to the wind.

PAT: Does (202)225-0600 sound right for the Speaker's number?

THOMAS: It sounds good. You could call the switchboard here, or you could ask your member of Congress to ask the Speaker to bring this bill up for a vote. Because Democrats will vote for it. I'm telling you, they will vote for it.

There's -- I would love to see the senator who was elected in a state that Trump won, that's up for election, this cycle, telling people that he is against reciprocity in Washington, DC, which is honoring anybody in their states, concealed carry permit.

GLENN: Right. Right.

THOMAS: And it's an indefensible position to say the public and members of Congress can't defend themselves, when the Constitution says the US Congress makes all the laws for Washington, DC.

GLENN: So let's play devil's advocate.

When -- do you have a second, Thomas? Can I take a quick break?

THOMAS: Please.

GLENN: Okay. I'll take a quick break, and then I want to play devil's advocate here and see how you argue the other side.

THOMAS: Sure.

GLENN: Back in a second. Give me the phone number again, Pat.

PAT: Yeah, (202) -- wait a second.

GLENN: Okay. You got to call Speaker Ryan.

PAT: 225 -- oh, yeah. (202)225-0600.

GLENN: Okay. Call speaker Ryan and say you want Thomas Massie's gun legislation for the DC area to be passed as is. Call your congressman and tell him to pressure Speaker Ryan.

What a surprise. Paul Ryan is turning out to be a weasel. I can't believe it!

Call that number now. One more time. Here is the number.

PAT: (202)225-0600.

GLENN: Here's the phone number for the Capitol Hill. And call Republican leadership and tell them you want Thomas Massie's reciprocity bill for the District of Columbia to accept your concealed carry permit for all congressmen and the American public.

PAT: (202)225-0600.

GLENN: Okay. So let's take a couple of things.

Thomas, first, let's talk a little about the leadership and why they would want -- why they're not jumping on this bill.

STU: Right. Thomas, because I don't see Paul Ryan as necessarily an anti-gun guy. I've never seen that out of him. I mean, certainly part of leadership is Steve Scalise. So this is -- I mean, when you say leadership is at fault here, who are we talking about, and what's going on?

GLENN: Or what's the motivation?

THOMAS: Well, I've pitched it to members of the G.O.P. conference here. They love it. But I got a really icy reception with Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McCarthy.

I have to suspect part of their lack of urgency -- they say, well, they kind of -- maybe we should do it later, just not now.

I suspect their lack of urgency could be due to the fact that they have two security officers with them at all time.

GLENN: Hmm. Okay.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: All right.

PAT: That's amazing.

GLENN: So let's get into that a little bit.

When you have security, you tend not to worry about all the other people because you start to look at everybody else carrying a gun as a threat to your security. And that's what the other side will -- will say. We're in Washington, DC. And we've got -- you know, you're going to have a gun in the Smithsonian. A gun in the national archives. A gun in the nation's Capitol. You can't do that. The American people coming in with guns.

THOMAS: Well, Glenn, I can see across the river from here to Virginia, which offers reciprocity to 49 other states. Okay? And there's problems over there in Virginia. The Pentagon is there in Virginia. It's almost still part of DC.

GLENN: Yeah, but, Thomas, the Pentagon -- they have soldiers there.

THOMAS: I'm just saying that's the proximity to the Capitol. It's virtually the same area. And they have reciprocity. In fact, these congressmen were playing in Virginia at a ball field. But the reason they couldn't carry a weapon is they were coming from DC and were going to return to DC.

GLENN: Right.

THOMAS: The other thing, Glenn, 98 percent of mass public shootings, since 1950, have been in places where citizens haven't been able to defend themselves.

And if you are in a gun-free zone, which effectively all of Washington, DC, is, you are -- you're 20 times more likely in a gun-free zone to be the victim of a mass shooting.

GLENN: So I can't take a gun into a federal building in any city, or a state building, or a school, or anything else. If I'm traveling with my gun and I go into the Smithsonian or I go into the Capitol, you won't let me bring my gun into the Capitol. But you have a locker there or something for the guns? Is that what you would imagine would happen?

THOMAS: Well, in the Capitol, in the buildings here, in the complex, people say, "Well, you know, do you want tourists carrying guns in there?" The Capitol is literal the only example of a gun-free zone. The buildings themselves. Because they have two police officers at every entrance and a metal detector.

GLENN: Correct.

THOMAS: So that when you're inside one of these congressional buildings, you are in what is really a unicorn because it's so expensive to create. You are in a gun-free zone, where criminals -- where the criminals don't have guns.

GLENN: But if I don't -- if every federal building says it's a gun-free zone. Has a sign that says, "You can't bring your gun in," then my gun is locked in the hotel room because I want to go to the museum or -- go ahead.

THOMAS: Glenn, if it were up to me, I would let you carry in the Smithsonian. I mean, I don't see a problem with that.

GLENN: Right. I don't either.

THOMAS: And, in fact, I think it's -- I don't want to even phrase it that way, I want you to be able to carry in the Smithsonian. It would be safer in the Smithsonian if you could. You would be 20 times less likely to be the victim of a mass shooting.

GLENN: I know. Thomas Massie, the congressman from Kentucky. Really, truly one of the good guys. Keep up the fight. Don't get discouraged. We will call Speaker Ryan and say, "Introduce Thomas Massie's bill for carrying a concealed weapon in Washington, DC, for all people." Thank you, Thomas. Back in a minute.

THOMAS: Thank you, Glenn.

Presidential debate recap: The good, the bad and the ugly

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The second presidential debate was many things--some good, some bad, but one thing was made clear: this election is far from over.

If you were watching the debate with Glenn during the BlazeTV exclusive debate coverage, then you already know how the debate went: Kamala lied through her teeth and Trump faced a three-pronged attack from Harris and the two ABC moderators. This was not the debate performance we were hoping for, but it could have gone far worse. If you didn't get the chance to watch the debate or can't bring yourself to watch it again and are looking for a recap, we got you covered. Here are the good, the bad, and the ugly from the second presidential debate:

The Good

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Let's start with what went well.

While there was certainly room for improvement, Trump's performance wasn't terrible, especially compared to his performance in other debates. He showed restraint, kept himself from being too brash, and maintained the name-calling to a minimum. In comparison, Kamala Harris was struggling to maintain her composure. Harris was visibly emotional and continued to make obnoxious facial expressions, which included several infuriating eye-rolls and patronizing smirks.

The Bad

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite all that, the debate could have gone much better...

While Trump was able to keep his cool during the debate, he was not able to stay on track. Kamala kept making inflammatory comments meant to derail Trump, and every time, he took the bait. Trump spent far too long defending his career and other extraneous issues instead of discussing issues relevant to the American people and revealing Kamala's failures as Vice President.

Trump's biggest blunder during the debate was his failure to prevent Kamala from leaving that debate looking like a credible option as president. Kamala was fairly unknown to the American people and had remained that way on purpose, giving only one interview after Biden stepped down from the campaign. This is because every time Kamala opens her mouth, she typically makes a fool of herself. Trump needed to give Kamala more time to stick her foot in her mouth and to press Kamala on the Biden administration's failures over the past four years. Instead, he took her bait and let her run down the clock, and by the end of the debate, she left looking far more competent than she actually is.

The Ugly

If anything, the debate reminded us that this election is far from over, and it's more important now than ever for Trump to win.

The most noteworthy occurrence of the debate was the blatantly obvious bias of the ABC debate moderators against Trump. Many people have described the debate as a "three vs. one dogpile," with the moderators actively participating in debating Trump. If you didn't believe that the media was in the back pocket of the Democrats before, it's hard to deny it now. Kamala stood on stage and lied repeatedly with impunity knowing that the moderators and the mainstream media at large would cover for her.

The stakes have never been higher. With so many forces arrayed against Trump, it's clear to see that the Left cannot afford to let Trump win this November. The shape of America as we know it is on the line. Kamala represents the final push by the globalist movement to take root and assimilate America into the growing global hivemind.

The election is far from over. This is our sign to stand up and fight for our nation and our values and save America.

Glenn: Illegal aliens could swing the 2024 election, and it spells trouble for Trump

ELIZABETH RUIZ / Stringer | Getty Images

Either Congress must pass the SAVE Act, or states must protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Progressives rely on three main talking points about illegal aliens voting in our elections.

The first is one of cynical acceptance. They admit that illegal immigrants are already voting but argue that there is nothing we can do to stop it, suggesting that it’s just another factor we should expect in future elections. This position shows no respect for our electoral system or the rule of law and doesn’t warrant further attention.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches.

The second talking point targets the right. Progressives question why Republicans care, asking why they assume illegal immigrants voting would only benefit the other side. They suggest that some of these voters might also support the GOP.

On this point, the data says otherwise.

Across the board, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, regardless of what state they’re in. The vast majority of migrants are coming up from South America, a region that is undergoing a current “left-wing” experiment by voting for far-left candidates practically across the board. Ninety-two percent of South America’s population favors the radical left, and they’re pouring over our border in record numbers — and, according to the data, they’re not changing their voting habits.

The third main talking point concedes that illegal immigrants are voting but not enough to make a significant dent in our elections — that their effect is minuscule.

That isn’t what the numbers show either.

Texas just audited its voter rolls and had to remove more than 1 million ineligible voters. The SAVE Act would mandate all states conduct such audits, but the left in Congress is currently trying to stop its passage. Dare I say that the left's pushback is because illegal immigration actually plays in Democrats' favor on Election Day?

Out of the 6,500 noncitizens removed from the voter rolls, nearly 2,000 had prior voting history, proving that illegal aliens are voting. But do the numbers matter, or are they “minuscule,” as the left claims? Let’s examine whether these illegal voting trends can make a dent in the states that matter the most on Election Day.

The corporate legacy media agree that Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will swing the election in November. By Election Day, an estimated 8 million illegal aliens will be living in the United States. Can these 8 million illegal immigrants change the course of the 2024 election? Let’s look at the election data from each of these seven swing states:

These are the numbers being sold to us as “insignificant” and “not enough to make a difference.” Arizona and Georgia were won in 2020 by a razor-thin margin of approximately 10,000 votes, and they have the most illegal immigrants — besides North Carolina — of all the swing states.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches. The progressives are importing an electorate to extend their ground by feet, yards, and often miles.

This is why Democrats in Congress oppose the SAVE Act, why the Justice Department has ignored cases of illegal voting in the past, and why the corporate left-wing media is gaslighting the entire country on its significance. This is a power play, and the entire Western world is under the same assault.

If things stay the status quo, these numbers prove the very real possibility of an election swing by illegal immigrants, and it will not favor our side of the aisle. Congress must pass the SAVE Act. If it fails, states must step up to protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Hunter pleads GUILTY, but did he get a pass on these 3 GLARING crimes?

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Last week, Hunter Biden made the shocking decision to suddenly plead guilty to all nine charges of tax-related crimes after claiming innocence since 2018.

Hunter first tried an "Alford plead" in which a defendant maintains their innocence while accepting the sentencing, typically due to the overwhelming evidence against them. Hunter's Alford plead was not accepted after the prosecutors objected to the suggestion, and Hunter quickly pleaded guilty.

Glenn could not believe just how disrespectful this situation was to the justice system and the American people. After years of lying about his innocence, which only served to deepen the divide in our country, Hunter decided to change his tune at the last minute and admit his guilt. Moreover, many expect Joe Biden will swoop in after the election and bail his son out with a presidential pardon.

This isn't the first time Hunter's crimes have turned out to be more than just a "right-wing conspiracy theory," and, odds are, it won't be the last. Here are three crimes Hunter may or may not be guilty of:

Gun charges: Found guilty

This June, Hunter Biden was found guilty of three federal gun charges, which could possibly land him up to 25 years in prison. Hunter purchased a revolver in 2018 while addicted to crack, and lied to the gun dealer about his addiction. While Hunter could face up to 25 years in prison, it's unlikely to be the case as first-time offenders rarely receive the maximum sentence. That's assuming Joe even lets it go that far.

Tax evasion: Plead guilty

Last week, Hunter changed his plea to "guilty" after years of pleading innocent to federal tax evasion charges. Since 2018, Delaware attorneys have been working on Hunter's case, and just before the trial was set to begin, Hunter changed his plea. According to the investigation, Hunter owed upwards of $1.4 million in federal taxes that he avoided by writing them off as fraudulent business deductions. Instead, Hunter spent this money on strippers, escorts, luxury cars, hotels, and, undoubtedly, crack.

Joe's involvement with Hunter's foreign dealings: Yet to be proven

Despite repeated claims against it, there is ample evidence supporting the theory Joe Biden was aware of Hunter's business dealings and even had a hand in them. This includes testimony from Devon Archer, one of Hunter's business partners, confirming Joe joined several business calls. Despite the mounting evidence Joe Biden was involved in Hunter's overseas business dealings and was using his influence to Hunter's benefit, the Bidens still maintain their innocence.

Why do we know so much about the Georgia shooter but NOTHING about Trump's shooter?

Jessica McGowan / Stringer | Getty Images

It's only been a few days since the horrific shooting at the Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, and the shooter, Colt Gray, and his father, Colin Gray, have already made their first court appearance. Over the last few days, more and more information has come out about the shooter and his family, including details of Colt's troubled childhood and history of mental health issues. The FBI said Colton had been on their radar.

This situation has Glenn fired up, asking, "Why do we have an FBI?" It seems like every time there is a mass shooting, the FBI unhelpfully admits the shooter was "on the radar," but what good does that do? While it is great we know everything about the Georgia shooter, including what he got for Christmas, why do we still know next to NOTHING about Trump's would-be assassin? Here are three things we know about the Georgia shooter that we stilldon't know about the Trump shooter:

Digital footprint

Just a few days after the shooting, authorities have already released many details of the Georgia shooter, Colt Gray's, digital footprint. This includes extensive conversations and photographs revolving around school shootings that were pulled from Gray's Discord account, a digital messaging platform.

Compared to this, the FBI claims Thomas Crooks, the shooter who almost assassinated Donald Trump, had little to no digital footprint, and outside of an ominous message sent by Crooks on Steam (an online video game platform), we know nothing about his online activities. Doesn't it seem strange that Crooks, a young adult in 2024 who owned a cell phone and a laptop left behind no digital trail of any relevance to his crime?

Home life

The FBI has painted a vivid image of what Colt Gray's home life was like, including his troubling relationship with his parents. They released information about his parents' tumultuous divorce, being evicted from his home, several interactions with law enforcement and CPS, and abuse. Investigators also found written documents of Colt's related to other school shootings, suggesting he had been thinking of this for some time before committing the atrocity.

In contrast, we still know next to nothing about Crooks's home life.

How he got the weapon

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Colt Gray was gifted the rifle he used in the shooting from his father for Christmas last year. We also know Colt's father is an avid hunter and would take Colt on hunting trips. In 2023, Colt was the subject of an investigation regarding a threat he made online to shoot up a school. During the interview, Colt stated he did not make the threat. Moreover, his father admitted to owning several firearms, but said Colt was not allowed full access to them. The investigation was later closed after the accusations could not be sustained.

In comparison, all we know is that Crooks stole his father's rifle and did not inform his parents of any part of his plan. We have no clue how Crooks acquired the rest of his equipment, which included nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bullet-proof vest, and several homemade bombs. How did Crooks manage to acquire all of his equipment without the FBI taking notice?

It feels like the FBI is either incompetent or hiding important information from the American people. Or both.