Country music star John Rich laid the 2A smackdown on Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi one time at a birthday party for legendary crooner Tony Bennett.
According to Rich, Pelosi asked him about firearms in front of actors John Travolta, Vince Vaughn at the house of Netflix bigwig Ted Sarandos, who was hosting the party for Bennett, who was turning 85 at the time.
“You seem like a reasonable person,” Pelosi said to Rich. “Can I ask you a question about guns?”
“Absolutely,” Rich responded.
“Now, I’m not a hunter but I’m pretty sure if I shot a bullet and it didn’ hit a [deer] it would run away,” said the California Democrat. “So why does anyone need more than seven rounds in their gun?”
It seems as if Pelosi was setting him up for a “gotcha” moment.
Anyway, Rich carefully explained how his wife was back home in Nashville, TN, with their two young sons.
SEE ALSO: Brave 14-Year-Old Girl Wields Knives to Help Catch Career Criminal
Rich then proposed a hypothetical scenario to Pelosi, one in which he, while at the party, receives a call for help from his wife because she hears the footsteps of an intruder coming up the stairs of their home.
Turning the tables on Pelosi, Rich then asked, “Madam Speaker, would you advise me to tell my wife to grab, the one [gun] with seven rounds or the one with 30 rounds?”
Rich claims he could see the lightbulb go off in Pelosi’s brain for a split second.
Evidently stunned, she replied, “Is that the way you look at that?
Rich, “Yes, ma’am.”
“Well, it was nice to meet you,” Pelosi said. She then walked off.
I’ve embedded a video of Rich telling the story above. If you know the originial source material, please mention it in the comment section as I’d like to give the interviewers proper credit.
Anyway what a great response by Mr. Rich. Remember it the next time someone asks you, “Why do you need more than 7 or 10 rounds in your firearm?”
Those politicians who ostensibly support and call for gun control, do so based upon their personal anti-gun biases, passive or willful ignorance of the 2nd, or other nefarious intentions, and they do so, while surrounded by layers of armed security. Need say more?
So, Nancy, you know nothing about guns, much less hunting. Very obvious. How about this–
My neighbor shot a deer on his property. That deer was in a group of several. My neighbor told me the other deer didn’t even bother to stop grazing around their dead comrade. Yeah Nancy, if a hunter took a shot at a deer at 600 yards and missed, the deer quite likely wouldn’t even acknowledge it, much less run away.
All that Botox is numbing your already feeble brain, lady.
TJ is as ignorant as Pelosi.
“the encounters he suggests as Might occur are miniscule, his answer is stupid and ridiculous”
Multiple Federally-sponsored studies repeated over a period of years reveal that from 1 to 3 _million_ violent crimes are stopped or prevented every year by the presence of a defensive firearm, usually without having to fire the gun. “1 to 3 million” is hardly miniscule. Somebody’s answer was stupid and ridiculous, but it wasn’t John Rich’s.
because you don’t know how many friends, protestors, tree lovers, family, antifa, blms, and lawyers are going to show up after the first shot!
The correct response is the 2nd don’t have anything to do with hunting. It’s for securing our right for people like her and the fool below to say dumb things without fear of repercussions. Personally, I’d think the right to espouse stupidity is overrated.
John’s comments make perfect sense to me, because there are usually more than one dip shi…
Why more than seven rounds? Easy. To prevent and be prepared for government over reach. Just like the Founding Fathers planned. Simple.
I would have asked, how many rounds does your security detail carry in their weapons? Would they be required to abide by a law that restricted them to 7 each? Boom roasted.
It’s not just our esteemed democrap speaker who’s ignorant. I seem to remember a certain RINO vice-president named Cheney say in an interview that he saw no reason why anyone needed high capacity magazines. Hmmm….maybe multiple assailants, stress and adrenaline producing accuracy issues? In his case a one shot was to many as he shot a member of his hunting party on a quail shoot. Ah the clueless ruling class elite.
Censorship is to critical thinking as genocide is to justice.If censorship is YOUR response to misinformation because you lack hard verifiable facts&compelling valid logic,then YOU are disinforming.
Dangerous Democrats are superspreaders of the toxic pathogens:
Eleutherophobia=fear of freedom.
Phronemophobia-fear of thinking.
Masks and vaccines do not protect you from these pathogens.
Pelosi’s detail carries 17 rounds in their pistols…and20+ (depending) in their Uzi’s. Most Cops today carry 14 rounds in their handguns…….5-7 rounds in their shotguns and 20 rounds in their AR’s….With the exception of those enlightened departments that make their officers shoot every month (Texas Rangers for instance) and they carry 7+1 shot 1911 .45’s….still have the rifles and shotguns…..In Rich’s case; I’d tell her to get the shotgun………the best human stopper there is………..
The 1911 is not “7+1”, doofus, unless you are carrying an Officer’s Model. Fully reliable 8-round Government Model/ Commander mags have been around for a few decades now.
Turkey neck Nancy crys about the 2a yet she uses tax dollars to pay for armed guards to protect her fat azz . Why does she need protection but we don’t ???
This guy Rich gave a ridiculous, typically ignorant response! Pelosi asked a VALID question, but since nobody can provide a valid, intellectually supportable, logical argument as to the question, most resort to these trite, absurd, unsupportable illogical responses.
His is typical – the encounters he suggests as Might occur are miniscule, his answer is stupid and ridiculous, and any other folks that attemp to answer questions of this type should Think before answering….or better yet, just say “I don’t know,” at least that way you don’t appear to be an ignorant ass!
We all know the real answer is that the second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. But Pelosi has her mind made up about constitutional law, and you aren’t going to change it in a 30 second encounter. Being that she is the government we need protection from, that is. So he gave her a simplified viewpoint that her tiny pea brain might grasp. Quite reasonable under the circumstances.
Your response suggests you are a deranged Democrat-Socialist-Marxist…with suicidal tendencies. Hopefully, you have a sign up outside your residence that says something to the order of “No Firearms Allowed Here”. It will keep the neighbor from being bothered. Thanks for your sacrifice.
ya know TJ, I am gonna school you a bit. WHERE in the second amendment does it mention hunting? The right to bear arms is about protection of your rights and liberties. NOT about hunting. Wanna know what is legal to hunt and with what? Go to the game warden, those things are regulated by the state. Again, another power not granted to the federal government.
Talk about an ignorant response…..
No, the absurd and illogical response is yours. He painted a plausible possible scenario to make a point. If you actually researched violent encounters that occur frequently in the real world; you see would see that crimes such as carjacking, home invasions and robberies are many times committed by multiple individuals.
You sir, obviously sufferers from a lack of self awareness.
You do you realize where you are commenting right? While Pelosi’s comment might be valid in a hunter context, which is also why some states already have laws regulating how much ammo you can have in your gun when hunting, Rich’s comment is just as equally valid as it posses a REAL hypothetical situation that many people experience each year. Both arguments are valid which is why there are already laws on the books for said situations. People like you, however, show your ignorance of any of them when you decide to open your mouth in protest of common sense. Have a nice day.
you sir are the one one who is ignorant. The second amendment states “A well regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”!! Not one word about hunting. The reason for the 2A is as a last check on the government. It is also meant to give us the ability to fend off home invadeder, muggers, or other people that would do us harm. So he was completely correct in giving Nasty Nancy the secomstances example that he did.
No, it was Pelosi’s question that was ridiculous and typically ignorant. Nevertheless, for your edification, I’ll answer Pelosi’s question. Nobody needs more than 7 rounds in their magazine to go deer hunting. But, there are other situations where more than those 7 rounds would be desired, or even necessary. Plus, Pelosi(and likely You), doesn’t know that many rifles used for hunting don’t even have the capacity for 7 rounds, let alone more than that. Even if they do, game laws will often limit round capacity to 3.
Maybe it’s you, TJ, who should Think before posting a stupid comment. That way you might avoid appearing to be an ignorant ass!
It’s so ironic how TJ calls someone else stupid and ridiculous. He doesn’t even know what “ignorant” means. It means: “lack of knowledge”. By saying “I don’t know”, you do not avoid being seen as ignorant, as this genius TJ proclaims, in fact you are admitting that’s exactly what you are — at least on that one particular issue. Everybody is ignorant of something, but not always intentionally like anti-gun dipsticks are. And the rest of TJ’s erroneous blathering is exactly what you’d expect from such an idiot.
Have you ever checked out who her daddy was, and what he was under investigation for?
You never know when you’ll need a gun until you need one, therefore, I rather have a gun with more rounds than I need even if I finish the “unlikely” encounter with one lucky shot. If this logic sound too stupid for you, I believe the problem is you narrow focus, just like Pelosi’s on that guns are not necessary in our society. In order to have a reasonable conclusion to any argument you must apply the principles of ethos, and logos which are authority and knowledge with logical reasoning. In your case your reasoning involves pathos which is basically sad negative feelings. Those are the principles of oratory so skip emotion and stay with knowledge and logic and we maybe close to having a civil discourse in any subject. In the case of Pelosi and Rich, neither is capable of a logical conclusion that may satisfy the other or you for that matter, since your are skewed in favor of Pelosi and probably do not know anything about weapons or the philosophy of their use. I think Rich could have engaged Pelosi in a more intelligent manner but it appears that she was just looking for a sound board to her beliefs and Rich within his limits did the best he knew how. If Pelosi had her way she would outlaw even single shot muskets rifle from the colonial era. The subject is highly emotional and thus the crux of the problem. We will see Jews and Moslems call each other brothers before we can discuss the subject of possession of firearms in the US with unemotional, knowledgeable and cold logic.
Of course blue dog you are one side w the left and YOU WILL BE LEFT TO BOW TO THEM . BTW THIS IS A PRO 2A GROUP GO S**T ELSEWHERE .DOG
What should also be mentioned is that trained shooters (like the police?) miss with 75% of their shots fired. Plenty of times one hit does not stop a criminal. Now let’s think about that 7-shot gun-for a trained shooter-5 of those shots would miss on average. Probably only two hits from a trained shooter. How many of us really train more than the police? OK, now you have two bad guys coming for you-as they like to travel in groups when they intend to commit a violent crime. So hopefully you have hit the first criminal twice with your seven-shot gun. What do you have left for the second criminal? Can you ask him/her to stop while you reload? Ask Nancy if she knows how many rounds are in her security details weapons? And they are trained shooters. Maybe she could ask them why their guns carry capacity is more than 7? There is at least one shoot-out between cop and criminal where 25 shots were fired by the officer. I’ll bet he was sorry he was carrying all that xtra ammo weight that day.
I have seen a deer run fifty yards with a 12 ga slug through its heart. I have seen several deer run one hundred yards shot through both lungs with a high-powered rifle bullet. How many puny 9mm slugs would it take to stop two or three gangstas hopped up on PCP? I heard Illinois is going to no-cash-bail on 1/1/23. Arm yourselves!
Yeah ok bud, and I saw one hit by a grenade and still ran all the way to Texas.
I’d say two or three “puny” 9mm bullets to drop that number of attackers. All close range head shots. Done.
The interview was from the Timcast IRL podcast which is hosted by Tim Pool. I was a great interview and I encourage everyone to check it out.
Rich was comparing apples to oranges . You don’t need a military rifle with 30 rounds to hunt a deer. But at home a wife might need one. Unless the wife is a marksman.
The 2A has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. Anyone trying to equate the two is either so ignorant, they have no business speaking on that matter, much less making law about it, or they are completely morally bankrupt and intellectually dishonest.
Madame Speaker, does Your security detail have more than seven rounds?
As an individual, is your life more important when being threatened, than the average American citizen?
Dear madame speaker, please 🙏 do all of us a favor retire, or go to prison 😀 🙏, you leftist ass hats stop going after 2A, Goddammit we as law abiding citizens have the right to protect ourselves. From those that are not.
I live in Memphis and if you asked me I would have answered the same way in fact I would say honey grab the 6.5 it’s in the safe and ready.
Yes I have a ruger precision Rimfire 10 in the clip. For competition, Hunting, and damn right protection if need. Cause the criminal element around here have Century Arms Mini Draco 7.62x39mm. So tell me were it is fair they can be armed but we can’t.
Pelosi STFU an GFTO
Madame Speaker: The 2nd Amendment is not about deer hunting.
The number seven goes to show you they will never stop until guns are gone.
There’s the blue dog turd/he/she/it we all know. The walking Botox ad couldn’t give (2) shits less what Rich’s opinion was. Period. She’s a typical left coast elite and he’s a redneck from Hicksville Tn – nothing more than a “set-up”. All the “I just want to understand you” and let’s “talk about our differences” bullshit from chapter 1, page 1 of Psychology 101 proves it. Same thing you’re attempting to do here. Equally as effective, which is not at all.
Piglosi doesn’t need a gun for personal defense. One look at her would scare the devil himself away. But also remember that she has “TAXPAYER FUNDED” protection and security around her 24/7. Then she has “WALLS” and FENCING “ with then again “TAXPAYER “ National Guard Troops around her 24/7… So she needs no self protection.
Ms High and Mighty does not have to HUNT or FISH to provide for her family, as MANY AMERICAN CITIZENS most do to survive. NO ONE IN THIS ADMINISTRATION looks like they have missed any meals or have to struggle for the bare necessities of life. They just keep getting fatter and richer off of the American Citizens!!! She doesn’t need a GUN when she can use the stroke of a pen to get what she wants, regardless of who suffers…. Know what I mean Vern!!!
From an old disabled LEGAL LOYAL AMERICAN CITIZEN, who FED UP WITH THERE S**t….
Ask Pelosi how many bullets her private security carry’s and see if that works for her too! Would she then say that her life as speaker of the house is more important than that man’s family? I am sure she thinks so!
Any of these snowflakes who think that a career politician is seeking to have an honest discussion on a controversial topic must live on a plot of oceanside property in Arizona.
Ole’ Botox Face won’t change her opinion one bit….she doesn’t want to understand anything other than her own party’s ideology. But Rich’s response was tempered and logical enough where she can’t use it as ammunition (excuse the pun) against him. Surprised he was actually invited to a party with all those antis there
🤣 She wasn’t wanting his view, she was trying to set him up. With a stupid question. She realized he turned the question back on her and made her realize her question was a stupid one. You obviously don’t get it either. Let me help you. She tried to use a deer that is not an aggressor and why you need more than one bullet. She was trying to push they narrative that you don’t need a bunch off bullets, but comparing a deer to an aggressor that intends to do you harm is obsurd. It doesn’t matter how many bullets you have when your life is in danger is Riches point, but more to the point is that you have the god give right to protect yourself and your family. Period! Something the oligarch Pelosi and the elite do not want the peasants to be able to do. Start using your brain and open your eyes. All politicians tell you what you should and shouldn’t do, but then turn around and do what they told you what you shouldn’t do. All of them do not care about you and if you think they do, you are a fool.
It’s a trap…admiral akhbar
Pelosis state is the hole of america
The senile, elites Pelosi. I don’t think she really cared about John Rich view on guns, I’m still baffled by her question. She has had dignitary protection as long as I can remember. She knows very damn well that her protection details carry more than 7 rounds. For her, like all the other democrats, is all about power and the elites mentality. Do as I say, not as I do.
That was a stupid question to begin with. If she had a brain at all she would of kept her mouth shut instead of showing her ignorance. That’s the stupidity we have running out County.
I think the point of the story was that Speaker Pelosi was wanting to understand how John Rich thought about an issue that he probably disagreed with her on. She asked, he shared his outlook and by his own narrative, she wanted to understand him and did understand him. Good for Speaker Pelosi for seeking outside her own echo chamber to better understand how the other side thinks! We should celebrate this kind of interaction, especially from the leaders of our country, not condemn them.
Not likely. Pelosi is a San Francisco democrat with decades in power. She is a dyed in the wool gun banner. She was going for a gotcha moment, but had the tables turned on her. Seeing as she’d lost, shes left. She will never be persuaded to change.
LOL
Do you honestly think that Piglosi just had a revelation and now did a 180 on her stance on guns?! Absolutely not! Those far left nut jobs will never except whatever facts you show them on guns. Si Vis Pacem Parabellum!
Yet Another…..Weak Minded, Feeble Attempt…..to defend the indefensible.
This would be hilariously sarcastic if I didn’t know you were a cretin who actually believes your own BS. Pelosi had NO interest in that guy’s opinion, and that’s obvious by her hasty retreat. Only a true idiot could miss that.
Speaker Pelosi was never trying to have an honest conversation. She tried to set him up and got her Louis Vuitton shoe caught in her mouth. She was invited to a birthday party, just like everyone else, relax and have a good time. But, she just couldn’t help herself trying to score a point whenever she can…
I would like to invite anyone to come out shooting with me. 7 yard targets. They get 7 rounds, I get 28 in my 30 round magazine. Nice warm day in Arizona. They walk back and forth 4x to my one. Then remind them. You only need one sheet of toilet paper, until the shit hits the fan.👌
Yes, we should “celebrate” the condescending question and the quick retreat after the good faith reply.
Oh man-o-man, are you Ever a twisted, screwed-up mess! I’m not saying that to be mean. I really feel sorry for you.
As usual bluedouche he/clown the window licker has nothing to add. This a PRO 2 site, so go back to your lefty sites, GTFO