Welcome to Gun Owners of America State of the second podcast.

I'm Kaylee.

And I'm John.

And today we're joined by John Crump of Amaland.

John, how are you today?

I am doing just fine.

How are you doing?

I am doing great.

Let's go ahead and get a little bit about who you are, what you do, all that fun stuff.

Sure.

I'm a writer for Ammoland.

I cover everything from laws to court cases to even leaks from the government.

Basically I report on anyone that wants to infringe on anyone's right to bear arms.

That is what we need.

And you've done an amazing job at that.

You've leaked a couple big things over the years which has gotten you a great name in the industry for that kind of information.

Yeah, yeah, I talk to a lot of people.

People tend to talk to me for some reason, not really sure why they give me information and I put it out to the masses once I verify that it's legit.

So we're going to start off with our first segment and that is rapid fire questions.

So I'm going to ask you five questions.

You kind of give answer as you see fit.

So first one we're gonna go with is best self defense caliber.

I actually carry 9 millimeter.

I think that's the perfect balance between stopping power and capacity.

I know a lot of people say 9 millimeter is not powerful enough and you should go with 45.

But 9 millimeter, you can carry more than 45.

So 9 millimeter would be my choice.

What is your top bucket list gun?

Ah, that is hard.

The gun that I really want and it's going to be very unusual for a lot of people.

It's World War II Liberator.

It was a small gun that was dropped over occupied France that had a single round of 45.

And the purpose of it was to shoot a Nazi and take their gun.

I've seen one, I want one.

Please, somebody make one.

This is our cry to the entire industry.

If you're watching, please make a Liberator.

See what was your last impulse buy?

My last impulse buy, that would be a TSIS 5 7, the new 5.7 gun.

And I also got a 86 blackout that I just got not too long ago.

What would is your go to home defense gun?

My go to home defense gun, I have several.

The gun that I have right next to my bed is a VP9 and that is used to get to my rifle which is a Geisley super duty that is suppressed.

And the last Question is the greatest Internet argument of all time, Glock or 1911?

I would say right now, I would say Glock.

You know, I carry a VP9, but I do like the Glocks better than 1911s because I like striker from striker fire more than hammer fire.

Awesome.

Well, that is rapid fire.

Questions.

We're going to go into this.

What you know, you've done a lot.

You've got a ton of articles out there.

What made you get into the writing space and what is the importance of the print articles that we've seen a lot of people say are kind of a dying trend.

What is the importance to the two a community with the print?

I came into the writing space in a very unusual way.

I started writing letters to the editor and eventually Freddie Real, who is the editor in chief of Amolin, said, why don't you just write for us?

I was like, okay, I can do that.

The whole entire thing of print versus media like YouTube and stuff, I do both.

So I find that the audience on my YouTube videos is different from for my writing audience.

A lot of the people that watch my YouTube videos don't realize I write and a lot of people that read my written articles don't realize I have a YouTube channel.

The field doesn't cross streams too well.

It seems like it's a little bit of an older generation with the reading of the articles than the watching of the videos.

But I also like the articles because I can go more in depth, I can cover it.

It's not as quick pace, get something out.

Now I can do a little bit of research work on my leaks, print the documents out and everything else in the written article.

So I actually prefer the written articles from the videos, but that's just me.

But the main thing is the more ways we have to get the information out there, the better.

Whether it's writing or videos, they both have a place and they both are needed.

So what is like your high watermark for the most amount of articles you've written in a week?

That's.

That's tough.

I try only to do at most five a week, but my high mark was probably like 11 or 12.

But I've written over a thousand articles, but they take a little bit more time than a video because they're a lot more researched, but probably 11 or 12.

And a lot of times when I work on an article, the article turns out to be nothing.

So I say about like 80 to 90% of the stuff I do research on turns out to be nothing.

So I get an anonymous tip, I look into it, and it looks very, very promising.

And I go down this big rabbit hole.

Then at the end of the rabbit hole, I find out that it was all BS.

Now, you not only do YouTube and write, but you also do a podcast.

Which out of those three, which.

Which one is you think can get the most information out or which one's your favorite?

Getting the most information out would be the writing, because I can research everything.

If there's documents, I can embed them and everything else.

So the writing definitely gets the most information out.

But I do like doing, like, the podcast and stuff.

I like talking to people, and I like just getting people stories, which is a little bit different than what I do with my writing or my videos.

So one of the things that I want to get into, which I think is probably something most people don't realize, is that you were recently involved with a case on where your First Amendment protection as a journalist was threatened.

Is that probably the best way to put it?

That's exactly the best way to put it.

As Steven Stambolia, one of my lawyers, put it, they were trying to take a blowtorch to the First Amendment.

I got some documents and I wrote about the document, and the ATF tried to get a gag order on me to prevent me from reporting anymore on the documents or the case.

The case was the auto keycard case.

They filed a motion with the judge to basically silence me.

They didn't let me know that they were filing this motion, and I would not have known it.

But Steven Stambolia found it.

Could be looking through the case documents and saw, hey, John's mentioned here.

They're trying to silence him.

So Goa came to my rescue.

Rob Olson, Stevenson Bolia, James Phillips, Ron Shook, and a few other lawyers put together a defense of my case and they flew down to Florida.

I live right outside D.C.

so there's no way I was going to make down to Florida in, like, two days.

But Steven Stambolia jumped on a plane, flew down there, and showed up.

It looked like the ATF lawyers were surprised that anyone showed up.

In fact, they withdrew the motion once Stephen started his argument.

And the lawyer that actually fired filed the motion.

She didn't even testify or say anything at the case.

It was her boss.

And when the judge wanted to speak to her, he was like, yeah, I don't think any good can come out of that.

So we're not going to let her speak.

Wow.

So this was filed in.

It's a federal court case.

Federal court case?

Yes, in Florida, the middle district of Florida.

And so it was a.

If they would have been successful, what would that have meant to not only the written communications that you.

You put out and the articles that you write, but it was a complete gag order on all.

Yeah, all journalism.

Yeah, it was mostly towards my videos because the lawyer, Laura Crawford Taylor, didn't like people saying mean things about her in the comments.

So she tried to put a gag order on me to stop reporting on the case.

So that would have affected a lot of people on YouTube.

All the channels on YouTube they would be able to go after, but luckily the judge saw through it and once the writing was on the wall that they weren't gonna win, they pulled their motion.

But that would have affected not only me, but it would affected everyone, because if they were successful at that, they could go after every YouTube channel, every writer, everywhere.

So was there any claim in this where they wanted to say that, like, YouTube, citizen journalism didn't exist?

Like what.

What was this predicated?

Obviously, like you.

You write for an official publication, but they were directing this towards the YouTube channel.

Yeah, yeah, they were definitely directed towards the YouTube channel.

Their argument was that YouTube is not a real news source and people on YouTube aren't real journalists.

I am a credentialed journalist.

I'm a member of several different journalism outfits, so that kind of helped me out a little bit.

But the judge even realized that YouTube is a place of journalism and people on YouTube are citizen journalists.

There is no official credentials in the United States to be a journalist.

You can be a journalist by reporting, and the mainstream media and the government doesn't like that fact.

So they would like to crack down and they would like to, like, have a journalism license, I guess, but they don't.

And we have to prevent that from happening because then they can control the narrative.

Now, for people who may not know completely about the case, they were good.

This is strictly a First amendment attack.

And so they're trying to put a gag order on you for just reporting on this case.

Were they trying to go as it.

As a grounds of defamation or was it just on the grounds that they didn't think that you should be citizen journalist?

No, it wasn't defamation.

Everything in it was accurate.

What the problem that the lawyer had was people were saying mean things about her.

That was the whole entire thing.

So she wanted to gag me because people were saying mean things about her because I was reporting on the case.

And she didn't like people getting the information and making comments towards Her I can't control what people say.

I put out the facts.

There was no personal attacks.

It was just the facts.

And if people want to read those facts and say, hey, this person is doing something bad and this person is prosecuting someone that they shouldn't be prosecuting, that's their right to do.

As an American, we have freedom of speech in this country.

And she did not like that.

Even though that she's supposed to be a lawyer for the government upholding the rights of the people.

Obviously that's not the case.

And you know, the auto keycard case was not a wildly publicized case to begin with.

Right.

It's not going to be something that people find on CNN or Fox News or major media outlets.

So it's incumbent upon journalists like yourself and outlets, whether that's your YouTube channel or ammo Land to get that information out in general simply because you don't, you don't have the luxury of waiting for the mainstream media to cover the case because it most likely would never happen.

Yeah, it definitely would have happened.

I reported on the auto keycard case because no one else was doing it.

You couldn't see it on Fox News.

You can see on CNN there was a small paper in the Tampa area that were that was reporting on it, but other than that no one was really reporting on it.

In that case is a travesty.

I mean it was a card with a outline of a lightning link on it.

The dimensions of the lightning link was not even correct.

The ATF cut out the lightning link, couldn't get it to work.

The only thing that they were able to do is to get Hammer follow by jamming the AR15 up.

So they never even got it to work.

But yet they prosecuted two people for machine guns even though the device that they had didn't convert anything to a machine gun.

It's insane how, how they they claim that nothing was correct and they basically broke the AR to get it to do what exactly what it needed to what they claimed it was doing.

We've seen a lot of sites like Ammoland come up over the last couple years.

What is the importance of sites like Ammoland and articles going on that those kinds of websites?

Well, the importance of Amaland is we report on a lot of stuff that you won't see in the mainstream media when it comes to firearms.

The mainstream media is funded by people like Michael Bloomberg and other billionaires who don't really like guns.

Where Amolin comes in at is we report on things like the auto key card case and republish like links to leaks that we get that you wouldn't get on CNN or anything else like that.

Because it's not their narrative that they want to spin by releasing documents that make the ETF look bad.

So that is where sites like Amoland and a few others come in to play because we give the people information that they wouldn't get other places.

Yeah, and I wanted to pick your brain on this.

You know, Ammoland and other news sources, they are not claimed as mainstream media.

Do you know, do you feel an attack from mainstream media calling you either a conspiracy theorist or a leakist or this isn't true.

How do you combat those kind of attacks on things like that?

Well, luckily everything on Amalien we do is verified and reverified.

We probably have a better track record in getting things right than a lot of the mainstream media places.

So luckily, we don't really get attacked as being conspiracy theorists as much as some other sites.

In fact, we've been cited in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and other places like that.

So we're not really dealing with that.

But I have been called a self proclaimed journalist and everything else by certain papers.

Out of everything you've done, what has been your claim to fame?

What was the one that put you on the map?

There's been a couple, both dealing with etf.

One of the ones that put me on the map was when I reported on the the Biden transition team meeting with the ATF right after the election.

I'm talking about like the day after the election, before it was even really settled.

The Biden administration started meeting with the ATF and they decided to go after pistol braces and frames and receivers at that meeting.

And while they were in the meeting, I got a shot of the acting head of the ETF and the acting assistant head of the etf.

And I had the article all written out and posted about exactly what was talked about.

By the time they got out of the meeting and it had their faces from inside the meeting sitting there meeting with the Biden transition team.

So that kind of pissed them off a little bit.

I see how that would make them a little mad.

I know you do.

Just when you get a leak, how much research and time goes into going, okay, I've got this information and now I need to verify every little piece.

It's not like you can do this in hours.

This probably takes days, weeks.

Yeah, yeah, it does take days and weeks.

And a lot of times, even though that you think that it's True.

And you're like, I'm 99.9% sure this is true.

If I cannot verify 100% that is true, I can't go with it.

So the thing is, when you get a leak, then you start having to contact your other contacts to see if they can verify it.

I go with about three contacts.

So three independent contacts.

So not like, okay, well, this other guy will vouch for me.

It's like three unrelated contacts that I have that I have to verify.

So I'll get the information, I'll look at it, then I'll look through my Rolodex, which I keep up in my head.

So ATF don't hack my computer because it's not on there.

I keep everything up in my head and memorize all the numbers, names and emails and everything else.

So I'll start contacting people.

I'm not going to say, hi, contact them, but I will contact them and say, can you verify this or can you look into this?

And I have them look and verify that it's actually true or not true.

And once I get enough, and it usually takes a couple weeks to go through everything, then I will write it up and put it out there, but not until then.

What is the longest that you've had to work on a story?

Oh, I've been working on a story for about a year right now.

Wow.

So, yeah, sometimes they'll be fast, sometimes it will take months.

But right now I'm working on a story that I've been working on for about a year and I'm still researching it.

It's not ready yet, but it's getting close.

What is the pressure as a journalist from the time you get a leak to the time the article goes up?

What's the pressure to be like that?

I want to be the first because we see a lot of people put out stuff without doing the amount of research you've done, and it turns out there'll be an alert out and it turns out to be a nothing burger or just something.

What is that pressure like to keep the information and go, I got to do my research, or I want to be first to break this?

Well, luckily, Amaland and my philosophies overlap here.

We would rather be right than first.

So I've had information where I was almost 99.9% sure it was true and I could not get that final verification.

And someone else gets it and puts it out and it turns out to be true.

But I don't feel bad because I couldn't verify it.

100% until the story already broke.

But it is a lot more important to be right than first, because you don't want to be wrong, because that just does a disservice to everyone.

You're not going to get it right 100% of the time.

Not a single journalist has been right 100% of the time.

But you want to mitigate the factors as much as possible.

So one of the things that I think a lot of people may not know a lot about is the process of the Freedom of Information Acts or the FOIA request.

You know, when you request documents, do you ever feel like the government is just trying to bury you in paperwork or what's kind of like the general process for you from getting that FOIA request to actually finding the information that you're looking for?

It depends.

Sometimes it takes a long time to get a FOIA request back, but it's not as hard as people think it is.

You go to foia.gov, you can fill out the information there, you can submit it via paper.

There is a lot of templates out there, and the FOIA officers that work for the government, they're not trying to stonewall you.

Maybe they'll get stonewalled, but they're really there to advocate for you, and you do get a lot of information back.

Now, if they don't want to give it back, that's when you have to get lawyers involved, and sometimes they will.

What's called a glomar, which is like, can either confirm or deny.

And if you think that's wrong, then you can do an appeal.

Then if you still lose, then you can sue them in federal court and you can recover legal calls for that as well.

So doing a FOIA is not hard at all.

Doing a FOIA correctly is a little bit trial and error.

When you do a foia, you want to be as specific as possible, but not as specific as not being able to get the information.

So you can't say, I want all documents between that DHS and etf, all the communications, because they're going to be like, that's too much, or they can just going to bury you in paperwork.

But you can say, I want all information between DJ, DHS and the ATF on polymer 80s.

That would be a more substantial FOIA, because they won't bury you on paper or say, that's too much.

That's what you need to do.

A lot of times when we do FOIA request, we already have the documents and we just want to see what they give Us, like, I'll have like the unredacted documents that were both leaked to me.

So I'll say, hey, can I get this document so I can see what they're going to give me and what they're going to redact.

They know I do that and other people do that as well.

So I suggest everyone at least do like a couple FOIAs.

Just, even if you don't have any need for it for foia, just do it so you can learn the process.

Because once you get that power, you can find out a lot of stuff about the government.

And that's, that's the key.

Having that information and having the power as a citizen to request that information and hold our government officials accountable for acts that they've done is a huge thing as a citizen, and that is what we need to do is to hold our elected officials and people holding office accountable for things they've done.

Oh, yeah, definitely, definitely.

And you'll be surprised on some of the stuff that you get when you FOIA stuff.

Like, why did they give me this?

They should not have told me this.

But a lot of times they give the information and they'll give you like a thousand pages and be like, okay, well, he's not going to find this one page and in this.

But when you read through every page, sometimes you can find the stuff that they are trying to bury you in documents for.

So it just takes a lot of patience and a lot of willpower because a lot of the stuff is going to be useless because they always try to bury the good stuff in there.

So we're about halfway through the episode, which means it's time for our from the Soapbox segment, which is where we get the spiciest takes from our guests on topics that we feel like are more controversial.

So in a world of suppression from Meta and Google and all of the other things, when it comes to getting the word out, as a content creator and as a writer, what are the ways that you feel like we as a Second Amendment community can improve on for our communications?

Okay, we're going to be suppressed no matter what.

We're going to be down boosted as what the tech companies call it.

We're going to be shadow banned, whatnot.

The way to beat that is through organic reach is to share the articles, to share the videos with people.

They can shut down the algorithms and they can modify the algorithms not to share our content and not to share our articles.

But if you or you go ahead and share them out, that beats the algorithm.

So what we need to do is to be a conduit of the information ourselves.

We need to share the information that you think is important with other people that you think will find the information important.

If we are each other's sounding board, we can beat the algorithm and we can beat the tech giants at their own game.

And you have a significant background when it comes to big tech.

Do you want to kind of dive into what you were in a former life?

Yeah, in a former life, I used to work for Meta, which is.

Used to be known as Facebook.

So I.

I know what goes on behind the scenes and I know the culture, even though I hear the culture over at Meta is kind of shifting a little bit for.

In a good way.

But, yeah, Silicon Valley is a strange place.

I never lived in Silicon Valley, but I've worked for Silicon Valley companies.

And one of the things that I found from working at Silicon Valley companies is Silicon Valley is so far to the left that they actually don't realize that they're that far to the left.

They're like, oh, I'm center, but anywhere else in the country you're far left, but in Silicon Valley you might be in the center.

But I think that is actually changing.

And a lot of credit goes to Elon Musk and X.

Do you think we.

I've heard, excuse me, I've heard stories of people working for Meta or working for YouTube who are very pro gun, but they can't voice their opinion.

Do you think that is what we're getting?

We're seeing this culture shift because more people are realizing that the First Amendment and the Second Amendment are so closely related, or is it just because there's just a culture shift completely?

I think that there's a culture shift completely.

There's always been a lot of people in Silicon Valley that are pro gun.

There's a lot of people that work for Facebook, even very high up, that were pro gun.

They didn't talk about it because they were afraid that they would get thrown under the bus.

I never really, you know, tried to shy away from it.

In fact, on our internal message board when I was working there, they were talking about how to deal with hate speech.

And my response was, hate speech doesn't exist.

That didn't go over too well with them.

But I think there's more people that are conservative or a lot of libertarians in Silicon Valley more than conservatives, but they hit it and now there's like a culture shift where they are thinking that they can come out as libertarian more now than ever before.

And Once again it goes back to the whole X thing.

Elon Musk is libertarian and now people in Silicon Valley are realizing it's okay to come out being libertarian.

And also I think the Gen Z people coming into the workforce now a little bit more libertarian than the Millennial War.

And do you think we'll get.

Do you think there's a time in the next five years that we'll see less suppression of 2A content on platforms like Meta and YouTube?

Meta and YouTube maybe Meta.

YouTube.

I don't see it happening.

I don't see it happening.

But there's other platforms out there that are growing substantially like Rumble, which really don't.

Doesn't censor to a content.

I cannot see YouTube censoring to a content.

Less actually see YouTube going more into the censoring of, of content.

What about Meta?

Meta?

It depends on who you talk to.

I still talk to people over there.

There's a lot of people pushing to open it up a little bit more over there internally whether they are going to be successful or not.

Only time will tell.

By talking to friends I know that work at Google, it's a much smaller minority that are pushing to open up second Amendment stuff than at Meta.

Do you think the.

Now we've seen this suppression on YouTube and we'll call it the second ad apocalypse that has been going on.

Do you think that has a lot to do with the administration that's in charge and they're trying to cater to the current administration?

Or is it will we see that if there's a new administration that comes in?

I think they're trying to cater to the Democrats in Congress more than the administration.

If you look at the letters that all youth are being sent by like Blumenthal and Schumer and all those guys, they are the ones that are pushing this anti gun narrative on Google.

They're the ones that are pressuring videos to be removed from YouTube.

So I think it is Congress.

What we need is to have congressional people push back against that because right now Google is a huge company.

Alphabet is a huge company.

Alphabet's the parrot of Google.

And what they are worried about is being broken up as a monopoly.

They don't want to be considered a monopoly because the government's going to break them up.

So they are willing to bend over backwards to do what these politicians in Congress want them to do to try to protect the bottom line in Silicon Valley.

People think that everything is very left leaning and it is.

But there is capitalism in Silicon Valley.

Like you wouldn't Believe capitalism is the lifeblood of Silicon Valley, whether they emit it or not.

And if they get broken up and the government says you're a monopoly, we're going to break you up, that's going to hurt their bottom line.

So what these companies do is they try to protect that bottom line by giving in to the politicians that use their political pressure to enact policies.

I mean, we've seen this suppression of stuff, we've seen lawsuits go through.

Is there any point in time, do we think that the suppression on Meta and Google will go away?

Okay, right now there is protections built in to like meta and YouTube and search engines that says they're not responsible for the content that their users upload.

They are afraid of that going away.

That's why they're doing all the censoring stuff, because there's always threats of taking that away so they can be sued.

What I would like to see done is that they be considered like public utilities.

Then they have to give everyone equal treatment.

But the section 240 protection, I think 230 protection, I think they are really worried about that going away and they don't want to be sued by people in.

Don't want to be sued by the government and stuff like that.

So they are being overly cautious and censoring things.

So really there's kind of like two, I guess, two countering attacks where they, they want to cater to the, to the government to avoid being broken up in a monopoly.

And they're also wanting to make sure that they don't lose that protective status that they currently have and be considered a publisher.

So where does that leave citizens and everyday people who are kind of fed up with the censorship and the.

Manipulation.

I don't know how I know what phrases.

Yeah, I guess who are kind of fed up with the manipulation or the censorship or the shadow banning or whatever terminology down, boosting whatever, you know, what are, what are real ways that individuals can make an impact?

Is that moving over to platforms like X and Rumble and abandoning them completely, is it getting rid of your Gmail?

Like what, what are the things that are actually going to be useful from, from a citizen's perspective, it's going to.

Places like X and Rumble.

The question is, are people really willing to do that?

That's the big thing.

Because creators are on YouTube because that's where the views are.

Creators are on YouTube because that's where they can get their message out.

Rumble and other platforms only have a small sliver of what YouTube has.

And people try to push people To Rumble all the time.

It's just not very successful because everyone stays on YouTube because not only is their gun content on YouTube, but it's their other content that they watch on there.

If people start going to alternative platforms, I think that would be a wake up call to Google, the YouTubes, the Metas, and maybe that will change their stance on issues because they see that they're losing market share.

You got to remember, this is all capitalism.

Yeah.

So the silent majority, I guess, has to be a little more vocal.

Yeah, definitely.

The silent majority.

Majority does have to be more vocal.

Whether it actually happens or not.

I don't know.

I hope it does.

But I can't say for sure that it will and I can't say that I'm confident that it will.

But I think it's gonna get to a point where we're not gonna have a choice.

We're gonna have to move.

And here is, this is a question I think we asked in an earlier episode, but by moving over to these platforms, does that give YouTube and meta showing that they've won the fight and we're throwing in the towel and we're just gonna move, or is that actually going to move the needle with them going, oh, we're losing using all these content creators and users going over to these more free platforms?

I think it's going to be the latter.

I think if we prove that there's a market for it and they're going to lose out on those views, they will come around because they care about the bottom line.

These are publicly traded companies, so they have to report to their stockholders.

They might have ESG programs and everything else, but at the end of the day, the most important thing to publicly, publicly traded companies is the bottom line.

Now, if they're losing a bunch of creators and Rumble starts exploding because all these creators are going to rumble and people are watching on Rumble, then I think that would move the needle back in our favor.

But it is going to take a herculean effort of the people to say, hey, I'm going to check Rumble to see if this content's on Rumble before I watch it on YouTube.

Not saying give up YouTube, I'm just saying check Rumble first, then go back to YouTube if you can't find what you're looking for.

And how do we, how do we as a community do that?

How do we get the virtue signaling or let people know like, hey, let's go to Rumble.

Let's get this going.

And we've seen this with other creators where we go hey, let's go to Rumble and before that it was, let's go to full 30 or before that it was gun two, gun streamer.

Gun streamer, yeah.

We've always, we've had these platforms pop up and disappear.

What, what do we need to do this time that's different than what we've done in the past to kind of go, hey, now's the time to do this.

Let's put our foot down, let's take our march with our wallets and our money and our views and go over to these alternative platforms.

Now that's the million dollar question.

I think Rumble is in a different place than full 30 or gun streamer or any of those other sites because those are firearm centric.

They only concentrated on firearms where Rumble is more of an open platform.

So you can find content of a bunch of different things on there, just not guns.

You can find car content, political content, gun content.

You can find all sorts of different content.

And with places like Full 30 or Gun Streamer, I like both platforms but they only concentrated on guns.

And people want a one stop shop now getting people over there, that is the million dollar question.

And if I had the answer to that, I would be doing it right now.

But I don't.

Well, I definitely feel like, you know, education and just getting the word out.

The reality is, just like you mentioned before, the algorithm is not going to be with you if you're promoting against what it is that they want to hear.

And so it makes getting the word out more difficult.

But the best advertising and the best marketing has always been and always will be word of mouth.

And so hopefully as more and more people come together and realize what's happening, you know, we can see that greater movement transition to places like X and Rumble and other free speech platforms.

But I'm going to give one last very spicy question and we can pitch this around everybody.

But what as a 2A community are we doing wrong and what do we.

Need to fix How I can answer this one.

I think as a 2A community we have a lot of apathy.

I think that is our biggest weakness there.

People think no matter what I vote, no matter who I support, no matter what I do, nothing's going to change.

They're still going to take away my rights.

That is exactly what the anti gun side wants us to think.

They want us to think no matter what we do, we can't make a difference.

And we have to realize that we can make a difference.

The election's coming up.

This is probably going to come on after the election.

But if you look at the amount of gun owners not registered to vote, it's like 10 million.

If those gun owners registered to vote, they would be the most powerful voting bloc in the country.

You would have pro gun Democrats, you would have pro gun Republicans.

Everyone would be going for the I'm the most pro gun person in the room.

But we just don't do that.

So we have to realize that we can affect the change even though that sometimes we don't think we can or we all get down because they keep on taking our rights.

But if we unite and we don't be as apathetic as we are, then we can enact our power on a scale that would be like a sleeping giant awakening.

Yeah.

And my biggest issue with our community, it has a lot to do with the I'm Pro2A but people, how do we get those people to come around and go, yeah, you may be Pro2A but you know, I only hunt with I.

They're not going after my bolt action hunting rifle or they're not going after my shotgun.

We talk, we've talked about this in the past once.

It's a slippery slope as you start going down and you, you lose the, you know, the, we had the assault weapons ban.

What's next?

What is the next thing they're trying to push?

And again, we're already seeing this with.

And again we're, this is before the election.

So we, this is gonna come out after the election.

But we've seen this with the Harris waltz campaign going, we're pro gun, we're not gonna come after your gun.

We're just six months earlier I wanna ban everything.

How do we get those people who are very or even in comments section of our Instagram posts and things like that where we're talking about activating this vote.

A lot of people are same thing, apathetic, they're going, oh, Trump did this and it wasn't a very two way president or so and so did this or my vote really doesn't matter.

How do we get them to go?

No, it does matter.

Now is the time to activate.

Now is the time to get voting and find the people who align with you and the second Amendment.

I would say have them read the amicus brief that Kamala Harris wrote in the Heller case where she stated that the individual does not have the right to bear arms and it's only with the military.

I would say that's a great place to start.

History is the ultimate judge and she's going to go after all her guns if she gets elected.

So is Waltz.

They're going to.

They're going to go after all her guns.

I know she says she owns a Glock, which I have a sneaking suspicion she really doesn't, but you gotta realize that the reason why she's even saying I own a Glock, I ain't pro gun is because the little bit of pressure that gun owners have been putting on her in Waltz.

Now let's say that all 10 million non registered devote gun owners wake up and they register to vote.

I can guarantee you you'll see her out there with an AR15 saying I'm going to protect these because politicians care about getting elected.

And if there's 10 million people out there that said, we're not going to vote for you.

If you want to ban that, then they're not going to try to ban it.

So we have to stop being apathetic.

The anti gunners, the moms, the man actions, the Brady's, the Giffords, they love the fact that we're not registering to vote because one thing that they do is they organize and they vote.

And we have to take that power away from them because we outnumber them.

Gun owners outnumber them.

We just have to wake up and vote for our rights.

And I know people say Trump did a lot of bad stuff.

You know, he banned bump stocks and whatnot.

But look at the alternative.

Some people say you shouldn't vote for the lesser of two evils.

Well, sometimes you just have to.

And Kamala Harris is definitely a lot more evil when it comes to gun rights than Trump.

Yeah.

And I think everyone listening to this podcast agrees with that statement.

So we've been getting the signal for a few minutes now.

It's time to wrap up.

So where can people find you?

Find Ammo Land.

Subscribe to your newsletter.

All of that good stuff.

Yeah, Ammo Land has a newsletter where we put out the latest breaking stories and the information you really want to know.

If you go to amlan.com there should be a pop up where you can put your email address in there or you can just click on the newsletter link from the website.

And I have a YouTube channel personally.

That's John Crump new and I have a podcast, John Crump Live, which I record Monday through Thursdays at 5pM Eastern.

It's live.

Awesome.

Well, thank you guys for watching John again.

We appreciate you joining us today.

Fantastic conversation.

Make sure to like, share and subscribe.

Hit the little bell for notification and we will see you on the next one.