erful somebody would have forced her into treatment of some kind.

But I also think that the trans story is at least partly about mental illness. Now because I have more respect than some of you do, let me say as clearly as possible I think it's super, super likely that for some portion of the trans community transitioning was exactly what they needed and it made their life better. I just don't know what the percentage is. I don't know if that's 10 or 90 because I don't have visibility. But whether it's 10 or 90 it's the same point. We live in a free world or we try to be. We're trying to be free. If they're adults, they've looked into it, they think they need it, they talk to professionals, that's their business. It's not my business. It's just their business.

And I've never had a problem treating any trans person as a human individual with dignity ever before. I don't know why I'd have that problem in the future. But there does seem that it has created a magnet for crazy people, right? Which is no fault of the law-abiding, you know, good citizens who just have a different situation that they found a way to deal with. It's not about them. It's about some portion have been attracted to this for all the wrong reasons.

And if you can't say that the trans issue is both things, you know legitimate people looking at legitimate solutions that their freedom allows them to pursue versus people who are just batshit crazy, as soon as you lump them together and say it's all trans, well there's nothing you can do. There's nothing you can do with that. As soon as you lump them into one category. And I think that's what the right does to their detriment. I think it weakens the argument to just treat it like it's all one thing.

So I think the Madonna thing really underscores that.

Rasmussen asked about preventing mass shootings. An arrest was in poll. 50 percent of voters say it's not possible to completely prevent mass shootings. Well shouldn't that be closer to 100 percent? That only 50 percent of people polled agree it's not possible? Well it's not possible to stop them all. I think everybody would agree with that. How do you only get 50 to agree with that? All right well but 38 believe it is possible to completely prevent such shootings. Okay that's crazy. And other 12 are not sure. It's a weird little poll.

So I suggested, well actually I stole an idea. Somebody sent me a letter and I like the idea but I extended it. So the idea that was not mine was to recruit ex-police officers to be teachers. Would you like to know that there were some legally armed ex-police officers who just had become teachers so that if your school wanted to be a little safer, just make sure that of your I don't know 100 teachers, how many teachers at a school, what would be an average number of teachers, a hundred, fifty, two hundred, something like that. Let's say 50 to 100.

You wouldn't need many of those to be cops. Two, three, two or three percent being retired police officers. Because you know if you're getting out of the police game and a lot of people are because the changes to bail and everything else, if a lot of people are leaving the police force you have exactly the pool of applicants you're looking for. Some of them might. Now you can extend it to ex-military as well. That's correct.

But here I wanted to extend the idea even further. So I tweeted that what if the federal government or maybe you could leave it to the states, that's a separate argument, but what if funding was made available either in the state or federal level that anybody who wanted to be a legal carrier of a weapon could take the classes or get certified in whatever certification and maybe have to get re-certified every year and then keep the weapon in some kind of a protected safe in a few places. So you want to make sure that people can get to them quickly but you don't want the kids to get them obviously. So some kind of a safe. A holster? Well somebody can grab your holster. You know if three kids wanted to they could hold you down and take your weapon. So I don't want it in a holster unless they're actually a security guard. Then yes. But not in the classroom. We've seen too many videos of students taking on teachers. Students will take on teachers. They will steal their gun. I think that's like a real thing.

There's biometrics for holsters. Interesting. I'm not sure I would trust a biometric for a holster because you still might want to steal it and get rid of the biometric somehow. So that's just one idea.

Speaking of which I saw a tweet from Emily Brooks saying that there was a quoted shouting match between Representative Jamal Bowman, Democrat, and Representative Thomas Massie. And then I watched the video. When I watched the video do you think I saw a shouting match? This is the way all headlines work. There's a shouting match. And then I watched the video. Nope, nope. There was one person shouting, Jamal Bowman. And then there was a plucky Representative Thomas Massie who happened to be walking by the public hallway. He just happened to be walking by. And so as Jamal is just screaming at the crowd in every direction, he's just screaming his gun control stuff, Thomas Massie just walks right up to him and just starts talking to him calmly about a suggestion for I think for arming teachers. And Jamal just keeps yelling and yelling and Massie just keeps to his same tone. And at one point they're just talking over each other. And then Thomas Massie sees it is being filmed so he sort of excuses himself from the shouting guy and goes to talk to that. It was probably a phone or a news reporter or something. And he starts to give his idea directly to the video. And then the shouting guy comes over and tries to shout him away from the video so he can't even say his idea.

All right, every day I'm finding a new reason to love Thomas Massie. I just love the fact that he just walked right up to him and started talking to him with a productive suggestion and the guy wouldn't even listen to it. Wouldn't even listen. It was awesome.

All right, here's one of the best and scariest ideas I've ever heard. How many of you were in favor of universal basic income where the government gives you money and you don't have to work, you just have enough to live, right? Pretty much in this audience it's going to be old. Now right? Oh a few yeses. A few yeses.

All right, here's a hidden danger of UBI that I'd never thought of and you're going to say to yourself oh how did I not think about that. Are you ready for this? I'm going to bend your mind courtesy of a tweeter called the Commander in Chief one. It's all one word, thecommanderinchief and then digit one if you're looking for this person on Twitter. And here's the tweet that just blew the top of my head off. Are you ready for this? Seriously this is going to blow your head off. Hold on to your scalp. Here it comes.

They can talk about a universal basic income as much as they like. Any smart person will know where this is going but I didn't know where this was going so I don't qualify as smart. Let's see if you did. Here's where he says it's going. They will not be interested in keeping people around who cannot be useful. That's what I realized before. Yeah. Suppose we can't create a society where let's say 30 percent of the people are just using the money of the other people and they're not working.

Now in our current woke Democratic world that's pretty safe. If you were to introduce UBI, if you could afford it somehow and you introduced it into America and let's say 10 percent of Americans took you up on it because it's safe, it would be not that big of a burden on the country. Ten percent. They're probably getting some kind of services anyway and you'd say to yourself well I'll never even meet one. I'll probably never even run into anybody who's on the UBI. It's no big deal.

But imagine it got to like 30 percent. Imagine if one third of adults were not working and they were just taking your money. Your money. The money you work for. So you get to work and have a good life and they get to do no work at all and spend your money. Now presumably they would have fewer things. They'd have to live a more basic life but probably they could be just happy doing their fentanyl and whatever.

Now in the short run that could work. In the short run. In the long run you can never be sure that a despot won't take over. Am I right? History has shown us that every civilization ends. Everyone. They all end or they become a different thing. What if the United States becomes a dictatorship and what if we don't have enough money to feed everybody? They're going to kill all the UBI people first. They're going to round up the UBI people, starve them to death a