it. How do Second Amendment people square your desire to be prosecuted with that?

Now, I'm no expert on the Second Amendment, but let me give you my preliminary opinion. It's probably a good idea to have a law that says we don't automatically give guns to drug addicts. That might be a good idea, because drug addicts, by and large — not all of them, but by and large — they might have trouble paying for their drugs. They might say, well, I got this gun and I need some drugs. So if you've got an addiction and no money and you've got a gun, that's just begging for trouble. So we can understand why that law exists.

And I would also agree with anybody who said no, the Second Amendment has to be an absolute. People will die. You know, a lot more people will die if the Second Amendment isn't absolute. But you might want it that way anyway, because there are benefits from not chipping away at your rights. But here's my take. Does anybody think that the law that would deny a gun to somebody who was an addict — do you think that law was meant for somebody like Hunter Biden? Do you think that a multimillionaire is who they anticipated when they said, oh, we don't want a gun in the hand of that multimillionaire?

Now, so here's my problem with this. It may be technically against the law, and it may be true that Hunter broke a federal law like a really important federal law because it involves a gun. But it's also true in my opinion that he was never a special risk. There was no chance he was going to use the gun for offensive purposes. Am I right? They're not denying guns to drug addicts because they might accidentally shoot themselves. They're denying guns to drug addicts so the drug addicts don't use them to go get some money. But that's not a risk with Hunter Biden. He wasn't going to use a gun. He was going to use the vice president to go get some money, and it worked really well. So he didn't need a gun.

Now, his gun was clearly for defensive purposes. Would you all agree? There's no question, or at least there's no indication it was for anything else. But the indication is it was for defensive purposes. You don't think the gun was for defensive purposes? What do you think it was for? What evidence is there he was going to use the gun for offensive purpose, like to rob a bank? There's no evidence of that. Shoot his girlfriend? There's no evidence he was going to shoot his girlfriend. No.

So I'm going to have to — you might not like this, but I'm trying to remain consistent with some standards. And one of my standards is there's a reason that humans get to judge the law, right? There's a reason it's a jury. There's a reason it's a judge. In some cases you need a human being to say, did this law work for this situation? In my opinion, this is a misapplied law. Now, nobody's above the law, but the law itself is not above itself. Did that make sense? Nobody's above the law, but that doesn't excuse the law from being stupid. The law can't be above itself. I mean, the law still has to make sense, right?

If somebody passed a law that said you can't wear a blue shirt and they execute everybody who does, you wouldn't say to yourself, well, nobody's above the law. You'd say no, we got to change that law right away. There's something wrong with the law. You wouldn't say there's something wrong with the pe