worried about. Now we don't have to read his mind because he said it out loud himself. Can I add a "himself" in the middle there? How about a little context please. Trump wasn't worried about his own physical safety. Why? Well he said they weren't there to hurt him. That's one thing. But why is the other reason? Probably because he thought it was important and that his physical safety wasn't the main criteria to worry about at that moment. Maybe. Don't know. We don't know what he was thinking, right? This would be mind reading. But maybe Trump was thinking that putting Pence at risk was the right play given that he believed the election was stolen. Was he wrong? Well his assumption might have been wrong about the election but if you believe he was right about the election and he thought he was right and it was obvious and you know soon everybody would know he's right, under those assumptions which have not been validated, under those assumptions putting a little bit of risk, physical risk on Pence to get him to maybe do the right thing wasn't the wrong play. It might be the wrong assumption that the election was rigged, might be. But it wasn't the wrong play to say that both the president and the vice president should take on some physical risk just like the protesters were. We do live in a country where "around and find out" is our operating system. Am I wrong that that's basically the entire Constitution in one sentence? It's one sentence. Around and find out. That's the whole Constitution. We just formalized it basically.

So in a situation in which — and Dinesh asked this question perfectly today. He said the only relevant question regarding January 6 is how are people supposed to behave when they're convinced the election was stolen? What is the reasonable conduct under those circumstances? That's a good question. How should you act if you're sure the election was stolen? You might be wrong but how should you act? Calm? I don't know. But I had to criticize Dinesh over this even though I love the question. It is definitely a relevant question. How are you supposed to act if you genuinely believe the election was rigged? How are you supposed to act? What would be the ideal way for a patriot to act under those situations? The January 6 event. That's how. Yeah. Again, not condoning violence. Not condoning violence. But a protest. Yeah. Surround the Capitol and shut it down. Stop the process. Yup. Yeah, that's exactly how you should act if you believe the republic is in danger. If you're wrong I think you have to fess up to it. You know, you gotta face the music unfortunately. You have to. But yeah, that's how you should act.

But here's my problem with Dinesh's opening sentence. He says the only relevant question is how are people supposed to act. That's really close. The relevant question is what did they believe at the time. And we're not really dealing with that in the way we should. The January 6 thing has not shown any evidence that Trump believed he lost. None. No evidence. The closest they came is if they can convince you that the word "find" means something different than it has always meant in the English language until Trump used it that day. That's it. That's it. That we have to define a word to mean what it doesn't mean in any other context. That's it. So if we walk past the real question to the — you know Dinesh's question how are we supposed to act is already thinking past the sale. The sale is what did they believe. You got to go back to the first question. What did they believe? And every bit of evidence, every bit of evidence suggests that everybody involved believes that the election was sketchy. We now know that Democrats are coming to that opinion in large numbers. The number of Democrats who believe elections are now credible and reliable is way down from a year ago. And the January 6 thing is probably part of that. That's my guess. It's lowering everybody's understanding of the safety of the election.

All right. Adam Kinzinger who you know is — I guess you would call him a RINO. He's a Republican but you don't think he's Republican enough. And he's on this January 6 committee because he's so not Republican the Democrats were happy to have him. But he tells the story of being hunkered down in his office during the January 6 protest afraid that the protesters would get to him. And apparently they had threatened to kill him, you know, on Twitter and other places. So he had a real reason to be worried. So apparently he had a weapon. Now he's ex-military so when ex-military has a legal firearm the first thing I say is oh that's exactly who I want to have a legal firearm. Ex-military.

But there is a thing called a red flag law. I don't know if it applies. Does DC have a red flag law for guns? Can somebody give me a quick fact check on that? If the red flag law meaning that if somebody owns a gun or tries to get one and they have obvious some mental issues that you — there's no guns. All right. So here's the question. Do you think that Adam Kinzinger should be allowed to own a firearm? If you're a Second Amendment absolutist then yes. So the question is — I guess I should change the question. Let me alter the question because the pro-gun people are just going to say yes and that's the end of the conversation. Which is fine by the way. If your opinion is yes, absolute, I respect that. I mean there's some problems. That's not a clean solution clearly. But I can respect it. I might not agree with it completely but I respect that.

I just want to point out that if there's somebody who has a mental disability it's Adam Kinzinger. Meaning that if the red flag laws are designed for a citizen to say I'm just a citizen, I'm no doctor but you know my friend or my relative is acting in a way that you need to take a look at this. That's what I'm going to call out for Adam Kinzinger. I'm just a friend or a relative. He doesn't look stable. Am I wrong? Again we're not experts. We ca