so I used to be a conservative I no
longer am now I'm actually a Libertarian
now and a big reason for that is uh what
I see as a contradiction within
conservatism between supporting freedom
freedom of speech to bear arms and
support for law enforcement
because if the government were to
infringe on our freedoms even more than
it already has such as Banning assault
rifles for example then the police would
be the ones to enforce such tyrannical
edicts as the Canadian truckers
discovered so is there a contradiction
here for a conservatism why or why not
very smart question I can see where
you're coming from so what the way I
would answer it is that we look at the
FBI a lot differently than a local
sheriff
so local sheriffs have been the ones
defying all of these kind of gun
grabbing regulations and measures
because the sheriff is probably someone
in your local community you trust
probably someone that got elected
publicly probably someone whose kids
goes to local school and almost always
is a strong adherent to the Constitution
but I think you are yielding towards
something you and I could have a lot of
agreement with which is it's the FBI the
ones that take the knee for BLM the ones
that are calling for Mass gun control do
I trust them absolutely not but do I
think that local police is not just
important but necessary for human
flourishing absolutely and so I'm a
localist with this stuff I think that
the less Federal control when it comes
to a lot of these issues the better I
question so much of the legitimacy of
what the FBI is doing recently and it
pains me to say that as an American
Patriot where I look at everything they
do through a political lens now from
raiding Mar-A-Lago to spying on Donald
Trump to the rating of the homes of
pro-life leaders so your apprehension as
a new libertarian is totally right but I
would just challenge you to be like hey
that's a lot different than Sheriff Mark
Lamb for example in Arizona who is
elected by the local people and doing
everything he possibly can to go after
Smugglers and would never enforce a gun
confiscation measure and so we we need
to support our local police very very
important they're in our community
they're one of us where the FBI is
though I look at them as almost kind of
infantry for the regime does that make
sense
well it's that you know police whether
federal state or local uh they're tasked
with opponing you know all the laws of
the United States of America Federal
state and local so if the federal
government were to for example pass a
law that banned assault rifles then when
the local police then be compelled to
enforce that law is that not something
that's a good question we've already
seen though a track record and a pattern
of local police and Sheriff's hundreds
saying I will not enforce any of these
Montana for example okay came out
through every one of their sheriffs and
said we're not going to enforce an
assault rifle ban we will ignore the
federal government so I would just
challenge you to kind of look at some of
that at how some of these more local law
enforcement agencies are already
vocalizing that they are willing to say
we are not going to enforce an
unconstitutional measure from the
federal government but your apprehension
is well founded I don't consider it a
contradiction I consider it a nuance and
an important difference but I think you
would also agree you need some form of
law enforcement and I would much rather
be policed by people that live in our
communities that are close to us and
share our concerns then somebody far off
in a distant land and I'll close with
this the left does not want to defund
the police they want to destroy local
police and replace it with a national
police force
and so you and I can definitely have
agreement that a national police force
is horrifying it's something we do not
support I want thousands of local
sheriffs that are accountable to the
people and far less Federal involvement
kind of parachuting into our communities
telling us what to do
