Open Carry Or Concealed Carry: It’s Foundations of Freedom Thursday, a special day of the week where we get to answer questions from you, the listeners! Tune in today as we answer your questions such as can a county clerk refuse to do something the law says you’re supposed to do if it violates religious belief? Is open carry or conceal carry better? And so much more, right here on WallBuilders Live!

Air Date: 06/21/2018

On-air Personalities: David Barton, Rick Green, and Tim Barton

Listen:

Download: Click Here

Transcription note:  As a courtesy for our listeners’ enjoyment, we are providing a transcription of this podcast. Transcription will be released shortly. However, as this is transcribed from a live talk show, words and sentence structure were not altered to fit grammatical, written norms in order to preserve the integrity of the actual dialogue between the speakers. Additionally, names may be misspelled or we might use an asterisk to indicate a missing word because of the difficulty in understanding the speaker at times. We apologize in advance.

Faith And The Culture

Intro:

President Thomas Jefferson said, “€œI know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. And if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”€

Rick:

Welcome to the intersection of faith and the culture. This is WallBuilders Live! Where we”€™re talking about the day”€™s hottest topics on policy, faith, and the culture. We always do that from a biblical, historical, and constitutional perspective.

Our topics today are going to be driven by you, the listeners. You send in the questions to [email protected], that”€™s [email protected] They’re going to be answered by David Barton, America’s premier historian and our founder here at WallBuilders. And also by Tim Barton, national speaker, pastor, and president of WallBuilders. And my name is Rick Green, I’m a former Texas state legislator.

You can find out more about us at WallBuildersLive.com, that’s our radio site where there is a list of archives of radio programs over the last few weeks you can go back and listen to. You can also get a list of our stations that can be heard all across the country.

And then you can go to WallBuilders.com for all kinds of great tools to equip, and inspire, and educate, you and your families. So, check that out at WallBuilders.com today and share this radio program when it’s over. Get on Facebook, and Twitter, and everything else and let your friends and family get educated on these foundations of freedom.

David, Tim, we’ve got some great questions today! You all ready to dive in?

David:

You bet. Let’s go for it.

Shouldn”€™t Liberals Abide By What They Demand Others Do?

Rick:

Okay, first one comes from Joe. He said, “€œJust finished listening to your May 25th Good News Friday podcast. Thought it was interesting that a pro-choice Attorney General can excuse himself from defending a pro-life state law because it violates his beliefs and that’s okay, but a county clerk cannot excuse herself from signing a marriage license for a gay couple because it violates her beliefs. How is that fair? Shouldn’t liberals be forced to do what the law says regardless of how they feel about it, just as they demand conservatives do?”€

Joe, excellent question. I had not thought about that. So, guys, yeah. Okay, so a county clerk can’t refuse to do something that “€œthe law”€ says she’s supposed to do based on her religious beliefs or closely held beliefs, but an attorney general can?

David:

Rick, that’s easy. You understand how the left works. If you’re pro marriage, that’s really, really, bad. But if you’re pro abortion, that’s really, really, good. I mean, the hierarchy of values – you don’t look for fair, you don’t look for just, you look for what’s in and what’s out. And abortion is always good. And marriage is always bad. It’s real simple.

Rick:

So, it’s situational ethics. What’s okay depends on if you’re siding with the left wing or not.

Tim:

Well, guys, I would even point out that the very idea of conscience largely comes from the rights. And so the reason that probably this guy gets away with it is because we go, “€œOh no, actually we believe in conscience. If you think that’s wrong you shouldn’t have to do it.”€ And the other side goes, “€œWell, we don”€™t care what you believe. You”€™re going to do what we tell you to do.”€

And so the very idea that he might be able to get away with this is because we think, “€œWell, no, if it’s against your conscience–“€ And we’ve talked about before that if you don’t believe in God, really, you can just have opinions you don’t really have a conscience. Because conscience is that duty you believe you owe to God and that you can’t say, “€œI don’t like that. I’m not going to defend it.”€

They”€™ve Got to Believe In It

Tim:

Although, on the flip side, I would point out I don’t want someone defending something they don’t believe in in a situation that is so significant to a lot of what we would argue would be God’s blessings or curses on something as significant as abortion. And so I don’t mind at all of this guy recusing himself because I would much rather have someone that is pro-life, and cares about this, and will do a good job with it.

Rick:

Yeah.

Tim:

Rather than someone that says, “€œYou know what, I don’t believe in it, but I’ll do it because it”€™s my job.”€ And then they do it half-heartedly rather than just kind of butchers the case.

Rick:

Oh, Tim, that”€™s a great point because he could sabotage the case.

David:

Yeah, we”€™ve seen that a number of times–

Rick:

Yeah.

David:

–even early on in the Obama administration where that some of the Obama appointees in the Justice Department would have to argue a case they disagreed with and they literally would throw the case in front of the court. They would make bad arguments, not do a very good job, not present the case law well. And they didn’t want the outcome that they were arguing for. And so on that I mean, Tim, Rick, you’re exactly right. That is the difference here is we really don’t want this guy defending the pro-life law because if he were forced to defend this it’s against his conviction. So, he’s not going to put his whole heart into this. He’s not going to try to do a good job defending this, he’s not going to make the best legal arguments, he”€™s not going to go after it.

We Can Honor This Fact

David:

And that’s why going back to him and although I have a heavily disagree with him on the abortion position, I respect the fact that he said, “€œGuys, you need Thomas Moore for this.”€ Thomas Moore is not a throw away Law Group. I mean, that is a top notch law group on pro-life things. These are guys who argue at the U.S. Supreme Court. So, I really respect the fact that he said, “€œLook, I can’t do this my whole heart. If it”€™s going to be defended, let’s do it right. And he sent them to that. But Joe made a great point – this is the double standard that we see of the left on a regular basis. But, Tim, as you point out, this is really a good deal because we don’t want him throwing the case by saying, “€œWell, I have to argue the case and I’m just not going to do a good job”€ and throw it.

Rick:

Alright, guys, we”€™ve got more questions coming up, so let’s take a quick break. We’ll be right back with your questions. And listeners, please send those in to [email protected] We’d love to know what you would like to dive into in terms of these foundational questions about the law, about the Constitution, the Declaration, the founders. Maybe it’s something that’s being enforced or not enforced right now. Or something even pending in Congress. We’d love to hear your thoughts on it. Send those questions in to [email protected] We’ll be right back on WallBuilders Live.

Outro:

Abraham Lincoln said, “€œWe the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”€

Moment From American History

This is Tim Barton from WallBuilders with another moment from American history. Founding Fathers John Adams and Thomas Jefferson originally worked closely together but later became ardent opponents.

This troubled Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the declaration, who knew both of them very well. In the Bible, second Corinthians 5:18 tells us that God has given each of us the ministry of reconciliation. Dr Rush believed this and set out to bring the two back together.

It took a while, but Adams and Jefferson once again became close friends. Looking back on his role in helping bring about this reconciliation Dr. Rush stated, “€œIt will give me pleasure as long as I live to reflect that. I have been in any degree instrumental in effecting this reunion of two souls destined to be dear to each other and motivated with the same dispositions to serve their country, though in different ways.”€

For more information about Dr. Benjamin Rush and his other remarkable achievements go to WallBuilders.com.

Intro:

Thomas Jefferson said, “€œThe constitutions of most of our states, and of the United States, assert that all power is inherent in the people that they may exercise it by themselves that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. That they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.”€

President Reagan and Jerusalem – A Clarification

Rick:

We’re back on WallBuilders Live on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Thanks for staying with us. Sebastian has the next question, it’s about President Reagan and Jerusalem. He said, “€œI’m trying to find research to indicate that Ronald Reagan did in fact sign a bill to move the embassy, the U.S. embassy, to Jerusalem in the 1980s, but I’m not finding any online. A few items express his opposition to it. What is the source for this history I recently heard on the WallBuilders program?

Alright, guys, I think this was maybe Good News Friday recently. We were talking about the embassy, or maybe it was one of our guests that we had on that was actually there for the opening of the embassy in Jerusalem. And we were talking about kind of the debates about this over the last few decades that other presidents had talked about it some, had even promised to do it. And we were trying to figure out when the first time that a president promised to do this, I think we mentioned Reagan. You guys remember on this one?

David:

This one’s totally on me, Rick. I am the one who said that we’ve had this law since back in, I think, “€˜86 under Reagan and that’s on me. Totally wrong. The law came in in 1995. It’s called the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 signed by Bill Clinton and that’s where we said we’re moving the embassy to Jerusalem. So, it’s not–

Rick:

Wait a minute, wait a minute, David, you made a mistake?

David:

Oh yeah, absolutely.

Rick:

You”€™re human? I thought you weren’t human, man.

David:

Yeah. You know me better than that, bro. Definitely human, and I definitely make mistakes, and this is one of them.

Just Now Moving It

Rick:

Alright, so it was “€˜95. So it”€™s still been, what, 20-23 years?

David:

That’s right.

Rick:

And yet we”€™re just now moving it.

David:

And you know, in looking back into it trying to find it, it wasn’t under Reagan, did find it under under Clinton. So, my recollection wasn’t right on that, but it was interesting that– we were talking about how the U.S. was the first to move the embassy to Jerusalem, but that’s since the war, since 1967 war. And that war in 1967 that Israel had, it’s interesting that there were embassies in Jerusalem prior to that 1967 war.

Because what happened, at the end of World War II the British had the mandate to govern all of Palestine. The UN said, “€œYou guys take care of Palestine.”€ But there was so much violence going on that at the end of World War II Great Britain said, “€œHey, we’re turning this back over to the UN. We”€™re getting out of this. They’re crazy over in this area of the country.”€

And so when they got out then you had war erupt in 1948, that’s when Israel declared independence under the British mandate. And by the way, the UN voted that Israel should have a nation there and the Palestinians have a nation. So, war erupted between the two groups. And when the war was all over and done with what you had was a divided Jerusalem. Lebanon was holding the eastern part of Jerusalem and Israel was holding the western part of Jerusalem. So, you had a divided Jerusalem.

Embassies in Jerusalem

David:

But at that point in time, starting around 1959 I think is what The Times of Israel said, 1959 Guatemala and more than a dozen other nations put their embassy for Israel in Jerusalem. Because Bible wise, history wise, Jerusalem’s always been the capital of Israel, it’s been that way what 3500 years or however long it”€™s been. So, that’s where they put their embassies, but then there was some opposition to that. Particularly, Lebanon said, “€œNo, no, no, Jerusalem belongs to us.”€ Well, eastern Jerusalem did at that point.

But in the 1967 war when all the Arab nations attacked Israel, Israel whipped all of them. They got control of that portion of Jerusalem and at that point it was 100 percent under Israel’s control. So, it’s been an undivided Jerusalem since 1967 war. And since 1967 that’s one nations would not put their embassies back in Jerusalem because you still have the claim from Lebanon that, “€œEast Jerusalem belongs to us, it was ours.”€ Well, it was yours, but you went to war against Israel, unprovoked war, and you got your tail whipped and Israel took the land that you had. So, and by the way, they let you keep your own country – they just took back east Jerusalem, made it a unified Jerusalem.

So, that’s why what Trump did was really the first in the reunified Jerusalem in stepping out because other nations not been willing to do that. But Joe is exactly right. He’s not going to find it, like I said, under Reagan, it is under Clinton. And so there were embassies in Jerusalem prior to 1967, but with that war and everything, and the claim that it wasn’t fair, that Israel took back eastern Jerusalem, there haven’t been embassies since then until America kind of stepped up and we actually fulfilled the law that we passed in 1995.

Rick:

And so when you say it was a law that was passed, so this– again, memory here, this was 25 years ago, I guess 23 years ago. But that would have been a Republican Congress, which, I’m surprised it was Clinton because I thought the Democrats generally sided with the Palestinians or certainly didn’t want to take sides and weren’t as supportive of Israel as Republican presidents have been. But I guess that makes sense if that was the Gingrich Congress after the “€˜94 elections they would have pushed for this I would think. And I guess Clinton signed it and agreed.

The Change in Democrats

David:

And you got to remember that back then you had a lot of pro-life, pro marriage, pro Israel, Democrats. I remember talking to Tom DeLay, and I forget his exact numbers, but he told me that back at that point in time in the late 80s and early 90s he said there were about 82-83 Democrats that would vote pro family all the time–

Rick:

Wow.

David:

–pro-life, etc. And he said that when he left, and that was what, 10 years ago that Delay left Congress, he said at that point in time they were down to less than a dozen. And the way it is now it’s a whole lot less than that.

So, when you’re looking back to 1995 you really had two parties that were unified on marriage, that were largely unified on life, that were definitely unified on Israel. So, that would not have been out of the ordinary. And remember, it was also Clinton who signed that huge welfare reform act and so many other things which tells you where Democrats were 20 years ago where they”€™re exactly opposite to that now. So, it’s not– I mean, it”€™s surprising today to see a Democrat president being the guy to put his pen to that thing. But it would not have been surprising 20 years ago because the Democrats were so different from where they are today.

Rick:

Yeah, and just to be clear on that welfare law, he vetoed it twice. We had to pass it three times before we finally boxed him in the corner and made him sign it, right?

Blue Dog Democrats

David:

Passed it three times. And also we had all the fiasco going with partial birth abortion, we couldn’t get that through. So, you know there were some radical elements even at that point in time, but you still did have a lot of pro-life what we call “€œBlue Dog Democrats”€. Charlie Stenholm out of Texas was one of the guys who was fighting on almost the Republican side of that if you would. But it was a real fight, it was a real battle. And you’re right, Rick, some of it was with Clinton screaming and dragging coming to the line to sign it.

Rick:

Yeah.

David:

But nonetheless, it is still got signed.

Rick:

Well, even that, those battles was why it was such a big deal when Obama with his pen and his phone rewrote a lot of that without Congress passing a law. And just overrode what a Democrat president had signed, what Congress had debated three times and passed as a law, and the president signed. So, for a later president to decide on his own he could reverse those things, boy, you talk about unconstitutional and outside the jurisdiction of one branch of government. Bad stuff, bad stuff, but that’s a different topic and nobody asked that question. I just wanted to rant for a minute.

We’ll be back in a second. We”€™ve got another question coming at you on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday here on WallBuilders Live.

Outro:

President Calvin Coolidge said, “€œThe more I study the Constitution, the more I realize that no other document devised by the hand of man has brought so much progress and happiness to humanity. To live under the American Constitution is the greatest political privilege that was ever accorded to the human race.”€

Constitution Alive

Have you ever wanted to learn more about the United States Constitution but just felt like, man, the classes are boring or it’s just that old language from 200 years ago or I don’t know where to start? People want to know. But it gets frustrating because you don’t know where to look for truth about the Constitution either.

Well, we’ve got a special program for you available now called Constitution Alive with David Barton and Rick Green. It’s actually a teaching done on the Constitution at Independence Hall in the very room where the Constitution was framed. We take you both to Philadelphia, the Cradle of Liberty and Independence Hall and to the WallBuilders”€™ library where David Barton brings the history to life to teach the original intent of our Founding Fathers.

We call it the QuickStart guide to the Constitution because in just a few hours through these videos you will learn the Citizen’s Guide to America’s Constitution.  You’ll learn what you need to do to help save our Constitutional Republic. It’s fun! It’s entertaining! And it’s going to inspire you to do your part to preserve freedom for future generations. It’s called Constitution Alive with David Barton and Rick Green. You can find out more information on our website now at WallBuilders.com.

Intro:

Thomas Jefferson said, “€œIn questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”€

Rick:

We’re back on WallBuilders Live! Thanks for staying with us on this Foundations of Freedom Thursday. Next question comes from an unnamed “€œfellow Texan”€. Here’s the question–

David:

Are there many fellow Texans?

Rick:

There must be a few.

The

The Second Amendment and Joseph Story

David:

23 million. I think we have the fastest growth rate of any state in the United States, last I knew.

Rick:

I heard San Antonio was the fastest growing city in the United States. That’s impressive.

David:

Well, it’s really impressive. Texas has got so many of the top 20 cities now. I mean it’s just, for us to be spread out like we are– the last census, reconfiguration of congressional seats, we actually picked up for Congressman and everybody else that got the seats essentially got one or two. So, I mean we were growing at a really rapid rate. So, I guess there’s a lot of fellow Texans out there now.

Rick:

Well, we’re glad to get their questions. This one is about the Second Amendment, it says, “€œOn the Second Amendment, Joseph Story–“€ who, of course, we talk about on the program a lot, one of our fathers of American jurisprudence, Supreme Court justice. He said, “€œThere is certainly no small danger that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt, and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.”€ He said that in his commentaries on the Constitution in 1833.

David:

And what amendment is he talking about?

Rick:

So, this ones the Palladium, man. This is the Second Amendment and the question is, here”€™s what our fellow Texan said, he said, “€œThough open carry of handguns is now legal in Texas I can’t say I’ve seen it happening in the Dallas area and I find myself wondering if the lack of visible firearms in society contributes to the “€˜indifference, disgust, and fear”€™ so many people have for them. Does the exercise of Open Carry lead to greater cultural acceptance of the right to keep and bear arms? And if so, does furthering that strategic goal outweigh the tactical advantage of concealed carry?”€

Would More Open Carry Help?

Rick:

So, it’s a great, great, question and of course, we”€™ve talked on the program about how we think that should be the law that you should be allowed to have open carry. But all three of us prefer to conceal carry because of the tactical advantage, we don’t want the bad guy to see that we’re carrying and know that we’ve got a weapon and take us out first if that situation, God forbid, should ever happen. So, that’s an interesting question – would more open carry cause people to be less– have less indifference and disgust as Joseph Story talked about. What do you guys think?

David:

Let me rephrase the question this way – what do you guys think– concerning the Second Amendment– what do you guys think it is that contributes to this disgust, contempt, and undermining the protection of the Second Amendment? What do you think it is that causes that chain of sequence to occur?

Rick:

That’s definitely the portrayal in the media.

Tim:

Yeah, the perception that guns are what actually kill people and the media for sure is a large contributor. Every time that there is another one of these shootings – whether it be at schools, or theaters, or wherever it is. When there’s a mass shooting it is always portrayed not that the individual had issues and did something very violent evil, it’s always “€œguns have done it again”€.

And so guns are perceived– even though this inanimate object, right, have no * will and emotions for themselves, yet they are the ones– this is the object portrayed as the thing guilty of the crime. So, certainly the betrayal makes a big difference.

You know, Rick, even kind of unfolding what you said, certainly all three of us carry concealed, very common for us to do. And generally the idea is, yeah, if we are in a group, if we”€™re with our family, and somebody comes in, if somebody comes into a movie theater, if they come into a restaurant where we are. And as they”€™re potentially walking in, scoping out the place, if they see us with a gun on our waist, a gun on our hip, they’re going to identify, “€œOkay, I’ve got to take that guy out and then I will have the restaurant, or the theater, or whatever the case is.”€ And so the visibility of one gun draws the attention of the shooter.

A Great Disincentivizer

Tim:

I would counter, however, with if all of us went out with all of our families and everyone that legally carries all carried on their waist, right. If you go out with 12 of your guy buddies and all 12 carry on the waist, at that point it is not something that you become the target of the shooter. I would argue that probably this disincentivizes greatly–

Rick:

That’s true.

Tim:

–any shooter because now it’s not one individual that”€™s a target, it”€™s like, “€œOh my gosh, no, this is not the place I want to be. I will go somewhere else.”€ Which, oftentimes armed guards have that effect on some of these violent offenders. But it is interesting because part of the question was is a lack of people carrying maybe increasing the perception that if people don’t see guns, they don’t think it’s as common or normal? That these are not necessarily dangerous in and of themselves, but the operation of them can be dangerous. Could that be contributing to some of this maybe fear and anxiety? And I would certainly think there are some components of that could be true.

One of the books we have in the library is aPE book from the– a physical education book from the 1960s 1970s and it”€™s very common in high school back then that they would have a class on riflery, or in many cases archery, and various things that today would be considered incredibly dangerous. Well, if it’s standard that every student is at some point in high school going to take some kind of gun safety course, going to take some kind of marksmanship course where they learn the rules of gun safety, they learn the operation of the gun. At that point this is no longer a scary thing to be feared. You understand it’s an instrument and a tool that can be used and when used effectively can be very enjoyable. It can be sporting, it can be fun, but the lack of knowledge is what produces the fear.

The Lack of Knowledge Brings Fear

Tim:

And that’s why with a lack of knowledge, the fear comes when you see someone open carrying, “€œOh my gosh, that person has a gun”€ – it’s very fearful because we are not comfortable with guns. And again, the portrayal of the media is that everyone has a gun is just a mass murderer waiting to commit their crime instead of, “€œNo, no, no, it’s totally fine for people to carry, we encourage people to carry.”€ I would be very comfortable with everyone in the state carrying, but I would love to see everyone take classes on handguns safety and handgun operation. Because what makes me nervous when I see people with guns is I hope they know how to use that because if they draw that and don’t know what to do I’m nervous about what might happen.

Rick:

Yeah.

Tim:

I’m never nervous when I see someone with a gun because I think, “€œOh, I have a gun too. It’s not a big deal.”€

David:

And, Tim, being comfortable with it, we go back to the founding fathers and folks like John Quincy Adams, when he was overseas, he wrote his brother who was helping raise John Quincy Adams young sons, 10 year old, said, “€œHey, get these guys really comfortable with guns. Get them carrying them everywhere they go. Get them used to the safety of them.”€ As John Quincy Adams pointed out, more gun accidents happen from lack of knowledge about guns than handling them irresponsibly. It was not knowing about them. So, he wanted his kids trained.

Teaching the Young

David:

Thomas Jefferson told the young man he was raising, his nephew which he kind of adopted and took in to Monticello and helped raise, he said, “€œHey, you need to carry your gun with you everywhere you go – on your walks, your PE time, carry your gun with you.”€ So, people get accustomed to that and I personally have seen that. Working out on the ranch where we are there’s, as Tim mentioned, I carry concealed all the time, but there’s also times when if I’m out in the pasture, or on the tractor, or on the four wheelers working, I also carry open carry–

Rick:

Yeah.

David:

–because at that point in time, if I come up on feral hogs that are ticked off, or coyotes, or anything else, I’m going after them. And so when I have to go into town and get lunch, or when I have to go into town and get chemicals for the tractor, or whatever it is, I would walk in with open carry on my hip, and it’s a big gun I’m carrying on my hip. I remember two or three years ago when I first walked in people would look at that and they’d kind of– you”€™d see their eyebrows go up and it was like, “€œOh my, who’s this guy and what’s he got?”€ And now no longer does that happen. When I walk into town today and walk into any store – whether it”€™s the grocery store, or whether it”€™s the feed store, or anything else, it’s people just kind of glance and don’t even pay attention to it.

So, I think they’re getting very comfortable with it which I think is one of the things that helps keep from that disgust and that indifference is when you’re comfortable with it, and there’s guns around me all the time, and nobody’s getting shot in our town, and people get comfortable with that.

By the way, I’ll point out that even in the Santa Fe shooting, in the school there in South Texas outside of Galveston, Houston, that the reaction of the students there was quite different from the Florida reaction where that one of the young men stood up on national media and said, “€œLook, we know that it wasn’t a gun that killed our classmates, it was the guy behind the gun. And we’re not after the guns – we want people behaving differently, but it’s not the gun.”€ That’s the right kind of response, understanding. And that comes from, as Tim said, education, that PE book we have from the 1950s, and 60s, and 70s. Those kind of things, that really does help us respect the Second Amendment and keep it from becoming a matter of disgust and indifference.

Prevent the Accidents

Rick:

Well, both you guys touched on this, I just want to emphasize a point for parents out there. That is – typically, when there’s a kid accident with a gun it’s because they’ve never been allowed to touch or shoot, the never been taken to the range. So, you guys are 100 percent right. Start those kids when they’re young with the parent teaching them respect for that weapon, and giving them a chance to go with you to the range, and touch that gun, and shoot that gun, so that it doesn’t have the allure and the curiosity that causes those accidents with kids that typically happen.

And then like Tim”€™s saying, get them some good training and get yourself some good training. If you are going to carry, make sure that you get the training so that you’re prepared for the situation. And of course, Tim and I’ll be going back out to Front Sight in the fall, you can come join us if you want. Follow us on the website and on Facebook to find out what those dates are going to be. We’d love to have you come out and get some good training with us there.

Open Carry Or Concealed Carry

Rick:

We’d also like for you to share this program. So, get on Facebook, and Twitter, and Snapchat, and all those other apps out there and let your friends and family know about Foundations of Freedom Thursday. It”€™s a great opportunity every week to increase your knowledge about the Constitution, the Declaration, and the founding principles of America. And then you can help us spread this word, and help us do more research, and more programs, and put more tools out there in the marketplace, so the folks in America can help restore our Constitutional Republic.

You can do that by coming alongside us financially, sponsoring the program with a one time gift or becoming one of our monthly supporters. Do that at WallBuilders.com, WallBuilders.com. Thanks so much for listening today to WallBuilders Live.

Samuel Adams said, “€œThe liberties of our Country and the freedom of our civil Constitution are worth defending against hazards. And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.”€