Transcription
Mr. Chair, um, we have seen too much political violence in this country. We all know that. Uh, just uh, last week, Director, your friend Charlie Cook Kirk was gunned down um on a college campus. I'm sorry for your loss. In Minnesota, only two months ago, a madman took the life of my friends uh Melissa and Mark Hortman, shot Senator John Hoffman and his wife Avetta, combined 17 times. And evidence indicates that he would have killed a lot more if law enforcement hadn't intervened.
>> What you're about to see here is what I call emotional filibustering. What she's doing is staging the whole moment to put you in the most emotional state possible. The reason you'd want to do that is because emotion kills logic. Her position doesn't win on facts, it wins on feelings. So, she talks about who was killed, who died, and she plays to your sympathies because if you're emotional, you're irrational. And keep in mind, she's not just sharing. She's building a record, setting a trap for Patel. It's like asking someone, "When did you stop beating your wife?" There's no safe answer. That's what she's doing. Creating a political minefield where he looks like a monster if he doesn't agree.
Just last month, in my state, we were again shook to the core when little kids were shot down through stained glass windows in Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis. And while the victims weren't politicians in this case, they were six-year-olds and 8-year-olds, the manifesto that the shooter left behind was political. But in the words of your own federal law enforcement, this person was an all-purpose hater. Went after blacks, Hispanics, the president, Muslims, Jews, nearly everyone.
>> This is still the emotional filibuster. She's not just giving facts. She's piling on imagery. Kids, stained glass, church, hate, manifesto. Whether her voice is cracking because she's emotional, has allergies, or just naturally crackles, the effect is the same. It's an emotional ploy. There's no reason to do this if you're actually interested in a logic-based discussion. She's setting the stage to corner him.
And this happened during uh the first Mass of the year for these kids. They were excited to see their friends, meet their new teachers. And two children, 8-year-old Fletcher Merkel, 10-year-old Harper Moy, were murdered. 21 other people injured, some of the kids, 18 kids, uh, severely. Fletcher was just starting third grade. He loved his family, his friends. He loved fishing and cooking. In his dad's words, any sport he was allowed to play. Harper, the other child, we celebrated her life this Sunday. Thousands of people. Her parents described her as bright, joyful, and a deeply loved 10-year-old whose laughter, kindness, and spirit touched everyone that she knew.
>> Again, this is emotional filibustering. She's naming kids, describing their hobbies, painting a vivid picture. There's nothing inherently wrong with humanizing victims, but in this context, it's not about policy. It's about trapping the other side. There's absolutely no reason to go into this level of detail if her goal was logical debate. The point is to make Battel look monstrous if he doesn't fall in line. We've heard the words of young children who were saved because 12-year-olds laid on top of them, or a kid with disabilities who was paralyzed whose teacher pulled him out of the wheelchair, threw him under the pew and laid on top of him. We do thank the local FBI Director and the local U.S. Attorney's office for their work in both of these cases, the Hortman case and this. But I did want to focus on one local law enforcement moment that I'm not sure has made with all the news going on in Minnesota.
>> See here she's doing two things. She's one, stroking law enforcement. Thank you, FBI. Thank you. Thank you. Just to preempt anyone saying maybe we need better policing, that option falls off the table immediately. Number two, she's setting up the frame. If cops did everything right, then the problem must be the gun. This is lawyer strategy. Close the exits so the only remaining answer is yours. When the first 911 call, and you've heard about other places where this waited and waited, the first 911 call was made at 8:27 a.m. The first officer was on the scene just four minutes later, local Minneapolis police at 8:31 a.m. The Chief, Chief O'Hara, shared with me uh the actual numbers. Listen to this. Over 20 people were in ambulances just 14 minutes. All of them after the police got on the scene. 14 minutes after the first call, tourniquet, stretchers, and they got them all to Hennepin County Medical Center or Minneapolis Children's Hospital.
>> She's praising the police response to close the exits. If you say better policing could have stopped it, she's already cut that off. They've got there fast. They saved lives. So, the only answer left is her policy solution. Ban guns. That's not an accident. That is strategy. And I think it is worth looking at what happened there because one of the dads whose daughter was severely injured, still in the hospital, that I met on Sunday, told me that there is absolutely no way his beautiful daughter would have survived if police hadn't been there. So it is worth looking at for all of us. So my focus on behalf of these parents, because I promised I would do this on Sunday, was just to figure out how we can do anything to stop this from happening again. So, expanded background checks, ghost gun bans, every shooting is different, raising the minimum age to purchase assault weapons. Even if we're not going to ban them, I favor banning them.
>> And here it is. After all that setup, she rattles off the wish list. Background checks, ghost guns, raising the age, assault weapon ban. Notice what's missing. Anything the FBI could have done better. This isn't about law enforcement. This is about forcing Patel into her policy lane for the clip.
>> But that's one idea that's out there when so many of these shootings are people are 18, 19, 20, 21. The one at Annunciation Church was 23. Both shooters in Uvalde and Buffalo had just turned 18 when they purchased the assault weapon ban.
>> This is where her own narrative slips. The shooter she's leveraging was 23, already above 21. So raising the age wouldn't have stopped him. But she's too focused on selling the policy to notice the contradiction.
>> I'm not saying any one of these things would prevent every single shooting, but I really ask everyone to look at these.
>> Translation: We know these won't prevent shootings, but we have to do something. That's not a policy argument. That's political desperation. If it won't prevent the thing you're citing, why push it?
>> We also need to tackle social media. And I really did appreciate um Senator Graham's questions. I think we have to protect free speech and not engage in censorship. Um, but for years I have supported repealing Section 230, which.
>> Here's the pattern. She talks about respecting free speech, then immediately pivots to repealing 230. But notice she gave no preemptive respect for the Second Amendment in her 10-minute speech before trying to ban rifles. That asymmetry is the tell. So my first question is on the assault weapon ban. Do you think that would be helpful in reducing gun deaths? Director?
>> There it is. The sprung trap. After 10 minutes of grief and valor, she ends with, "Would banning assault weapons save lives?" If Patel says no, the clip is "FBI Director says no to saving children's lives." If he hedges, she gets implied support. It's a lose-lose for him, truth be told. Um, Senator, if I may, I want to answer the question, but thank you for your remarks. Um, especially it relates to my friend Charlie, and I share and relay my remarks, my sentiments to you. Minnesota has suffered untold tragedy in these last um few months. And whatever creativity we can use to eliminate even just one shooting, uh, one horrific death, I am in favor of engaging with Congress fully to do. I don't have the answers. I don't know what will eliminate it in its entirety, but I'm willing to engage and explore new ways with you, Senator.
>> What he should have said was, "An assault weapon ban wouldn't have saved my friend Charlie because the shooter used a bolt action, not a so-called assault rifle." Put the question back on her. Would your ban have saved him? That forces her to admit it wouldn't. Instead, he danced. And in politics, not saying no is the same as giving her the win.
>> Okay. Thank you. And so assault weapon ban. What do you think?
>> Senator? I think there are instances on this legislation that um um could prevent future attacks, but um I'm not going to weigh into the creation of legislation.
>> And that's where he messed up. If you say there are instances, you better explain them. Otherwise, you just gifted her a headline. "Even Trump's FBI Director says assault weapon ban could help." Our side lives on data. If you've got proof, show it. If not, don't hand her that line.
>> Could you also look at and I I favor just assault weapon ban not getting the hands in the these guns in the hands of people that shouldn't have.
>> I hate this phrase so damn much, ma'am. Nobody wants guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. But who decides that? What process? That's the problem. It's an undefined slogan, and undefined slogans become political blank checks.
>> You look at the numbers on the ages.
>> Yes.
>> Because uh from 18, even going from 18 to 21, which wouldn't have prevented the shooter in Annunciation Church uh from purchasing that gun, he purchased several the same day. Over 100 rounds were fired from the assault weapon through the stained glass windows. So if you went up to 25, it would have stopped that immediate purchase and probably saved the lives of these kids.
>> Now it's 25. So at what point do you get your Second Amendment rights? 30, 35? You're an adult at 18. You can vote, you can enlist, you can start a family, but according to her logic, you can't defend that family with a firearm. That is absolutely absurd.
>> But if you go to 21, that is the same age that already applies to purchasing handguns from federally licensed dealers. So, I prefer another approach, but I was hoping that our Republican colleagues would at least look at that. Given Uvalde, Buffalo, and some of these other mass shootings.
>> The reason rifles are legal at 18 is because if you strip both handguns and rifles until 21, you've erased the Second Amendment right for 18 to 20-year-olds. Either they're adults with rights or they aren't.
>> Strengthening background checks. Could you also look at that? Um, and then banning ghost guns and bump stocks. What do you think of that?
>> We're still talking about bump stocks. That that tells you everything. This isn't about effective policy. It's about sound bites. If she can get Patel to nod along the bump stocks under a Trump admin, that's a clip she'll replay endlessly. So, um, Senator, you're you're you're talking, um, to my heart here on one of the core missions at the FBI, which is our SIEs facility in Winchester, Virginia, which is a our hub for our NICS checks, our NCIC's, our capabilities on when we have, I think it's 19,000 state and local community law enforcement come to us for these background checks. We're trying to make that processing as fast as we can so we can get them real-time information. Um, I think we have a 93% clearance rate in 15 minutes. As it relates to ghost guns, but we can do better.
>> So, here's the reality. Most mass shooters would have passed a background check. Often the attack is their first crime. So, improving background checks doesn't solve that problem. It just sounds good. The system's already pretty effective as far as I'm concerned. 93% in 15 minutes is solid. The problem isn't paperwork. It's people.
>> All right. Well, just if you could get back to me on all those and talk to the White House. Uh, threats against elected officials have increased exponentially. Members of Congress received more than 9,000 threats last year, up from 1600 in 2016. Uh, there's been a lot of talk about uh the rhetoric and the like. And if we want to move forward on things like uh Section 230 or even look if we can do anything on guns, I do think we're going to have to be honest about this all-purpose hater issue.
>> Now she pivots, calls for unity, says we need to be honest. But notice she still hasn't offered a single Second Amendment respecting solution. It's all restrictions.
>> And that and it has bothered me this thing. You know, we're going to go after this group. We're going to have to go after this group. I just want to for the record show that the murderer of Speaker Hortman and her husband, uh, you know, he had it was Democratic lawmakers on his list. Um, he went to the ones whose addresses he had, by the way. Um, Planned Parenthood was on the list, as were businesses and law firms. Um, doctors. I already mentioned the ones uh with the Catholic church shooting. She says she doesn't want to make it left, right, then immediately frames it left, right. That's the trick. Claim the moral high ground, then use it as cover for a partisan jab.
>> According to the Anti-Defamation League, last year all the murders were committed, and I'm I'm not actually going to say this because I don't even want to go left, right with this, but you can imagine it wasn't from the left. KO Institute, conservative think tank, published a study just last week, uh, that found from terrorists from the right were responsible for six times more deaths than people from the left.
>> And she does it again. She says she won't go left, right, then immediately goes left, right. That's the game. Disclaim bias, then inject bias. I actually don't want to go tit for tat on this, but what I am asking for is that this rhetoric of blaming one side or the other stop. If you could convey that to the President and that we actually work on things uh that are solutions.
>> Absolutely, Senator.
>> And that's where it ends. Unity bow tied neatly on top. But remember, the only clip that matters is already in the can. The line where Patel conceded even vaguely that an assault weapons ban might help. That's the soundbite she came for. This is how the game is played. Emotion first, trap question second, sound bite last. The FBI Director can't write laws, but his words can be used to sell them. If the proposed fix wouldn't have changed the very shootings being cited, the honest move is to say so. But instead, Patel danced. And in politics, dancing means someone else is controlling the music. And that's exactly what Klobuchar wanted. A clip, not a conversation. She set the stage, built the emotional trap, and walked away with the sound bite she needed. This is why the Second Amendment fight is never just about laws on paper. It's about narrative, emotion, and controlling the cultural frame. If we don't call it out, their clips become the truth by default. One thing's for certain and two things are for sure. Politicians and tech giants don't want gun content to be recommended to you. And we're all fighting this culture war together. Now, you can help do your part by liking, commenting, subscribing to the channel, but most importantly, sharing this video with at least one person. Together, we can stop the suppression of our two-way rights. And don't forget to click the link in the description section of this video for the products that I mentioned in this.