September 18, 2025 • 40 mins
Ep. 301 - The Death of Civil Discourse
David and Brad examine the stark divide in how Americans responded to Charlie Kirk's assassination - with one side organizing prayer vigils and seeking faith-based healing, while others celebrated the murder on social media. The hosts dissect why the marketplace of ideas has been replaced by the marketplace of violence, explore how algorithmic echo chambers convince weak minds that opposing viewpoints justify murder, and explain why blaming inanimate objects for human evil remains intellectually bankrupt. They discuss the dangerous precedent of treating political disagreement as grounds for assassination, the role of social media in radicalizing extremists, and why calling your opponents 'Nazis' inevitably leads to someone deciding Nazis deserve bullets. Plus: Why the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, not the right to execute people whose ideas you dislike - a distinction apparently lost on a generation that thinks debate is violence but actual violence is justice.
David and Brad examine the stark divide in how Americans responded to Charlie Kirk's assassination - with one side organizing prayer vigils and seeking faith-based healing, while others celebrated the murder on social media. The hosts dissect why the marketplace of ideas has been replaced by the marketplace of violence, explore how algorithmic echo chambers convince weak minds that opposing viewpoints justify murder, and explain why blaming inanimate objects for human evil remains intellectually bankrupt. They discuss the dangerous precedent of treating political disagreement as grounds for assassination, the role of social media in radicalizing extremists, and why calling your opponents 'Nazis' inevitably leads to someone deciding Nazis deserve bullets. Plus: Why the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, not the right to execute people whose ideas you dislike - a distinction apparently lost on a generation that thinks debate is violence but actual violence is justice.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
In these bleak days, humanity is at a breaking point.
Economies are tanking, the woke mob is canceling everything, and
the little guy who's just trying to run a small
business is getting screwed from both ends. But not all
is lost. Amidst the chaos, two men offer up their
(00:26):
voices in the darkness, dropping two thousand pounds laser guided
truth bombs on today's lunacy, introducing the Sirens of Sanity,
David Pridham and l Bradley Sheaf.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Stop what's going.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Well there? It is, brad One of the great songs
of all time. I believe it was and h featured
in Forrest Gump at some point. For what It's Worth
by the uh the Great Crosby, Stills and Nash, and
also covered by one Rick Springfield, who in the eighties you,
I'm sure you had a couple of concert t shirts
(01:16):
with the great Rick Springfield. But Jesse's Girl, Remember Jesse's Girl?
It was him?
Speaker 2 (01:20):
I do remember Jesse's Girl. Yeah, good fit.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
I think he was on a soap opera too.
Speaker 4 (01:25):
I think this might have been more Buffalo Springfield, which
is different than Rick Springfield. They're in the same family, obviously,
they have brothers brothers anyway, So that's all that.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
It's David Prittiman Bradschief back here on the Printiman Chief
IP frequently we mean business podcast where we talk everything
world of business and pop culture. We're here on the
iHeartRadio Podcast radio network each week, each and every week.
(01:57):
Without regard for our own well being, our peace of mind,
our sanity, we are here each and every week. Remember
to subscribe and rate and review the podcast and then
encourage your friends to do it as well. And you
can learn more about our show on our website IP
(02:18):
frequently dot com and follow us on social media at
I p underscore frequently. That's all you type in and
you get all the latest exciting news that's fit to print.
So Brad, Uh. Interesting week, probably one of the toughest
weeks we've had in this country in a long time.
(02:41):
The week was was uh, you know, last week or
so has been filled with, you know, the assassination of
Charlie Kirk, the celebration of that assassination by thousands of
people online and presumably many many more. The right flank
(03:05):
and the left flank of this country are pretty much
at war with one another in terms of what this
all means for the country. None of it, none of
it is good. And you know, it struck me. I
sort of took some time to think about this and
talk to our pastor here at our church about the
message he was going to deliver. But you know what,
(03:28):
what I thought was very interesting about this whole thing
was the reaction of folks. And sure, there are folks
who are going to be focused on the how this
happened and what has happened and really what has happened
to our culture in this country, and it's a very
important discussion to have, and there's a day for that.
(03:51):
But in the wake of this tragedy, right tragedy, there
has been and uprising in folks who are heartbroken by
this assassination. And you know, I'll just say I did
not I've seen Charlie Kirk, I've seen some of his messaging.
(04:15):
I've never had a big issue with him. I thought
a lot of the stuff he did was very clever.
He knew how to mobilize people and organize on the right,
and I thought that was very very interesting. But I
never had a sense for the hold he had on
the youth of America until we saw the reaction, and
the reaction I saw in videos and news reports and
(04:39):
news articles across the country on college campuses were kids
getting together, kids getting together, high school kids getting together
and having prayer vigils and praying about this. And my
daughter and son go to a Christian school and there
was a message sent from the youth pastor at the
(05:02):
school to all the kids about how they should respond
and how there was an open forum for prayer and discussion,
and they took advantage of that, and all the kids
had a special chapel around this issue. And I can't
help but feel really good about that, right about the
fact that this didn't devolve into civil war after this happened.
(05:26):
You know, we've been through a lot in this country
with COVID, and then before COVID, with the George Floyd
riots and the stuff, the looting and the killings that
went on across this country. And I think we've had
enough of that. And so the one thing I do
take away from this, if there's anything good to take away,
is how are a lot of our youth has reacted
(05:49):
in a sort of faith reaffirming way. And I think
that I, you know, if you've got to look for
a good side to this. I think I think that's
it from my perspective.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
Well, but I think that's well taken, and I think
you're right. I saw much the same thing. And I
will state for the record right out of the gate
that I never heard a peep out of Charlie Kirk.
I mean, as you know, as people who listen to
this podcast know, I can't do it. I don't enjoy politics.
I've never really enjoyed politics, even when I was younger,
(06:25):
and I certainly don't now.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
And so I very purposely.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
I don't distance myself necessarily, but I make no effort
to bring politics into my life. And so I knew
who Charlie Kirk was. I knew he was a conservative.
I don't know what's the best way to put an
activist speaker politician basically who you know, had not yet,
(06:49):
to my knowledge, run for office, but you know, I'm sure.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Would have, and so, but I had never heard him speak.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
And I do think it's interesting two, you know, sort
of follow along with what you were saying, the difference
in response between crises on the right and crises on
the left.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
And you know, I'm not qualified.
Speaker 4 (07:18):
I have some you know, I have some opinions on
why those two things are so radically different, but you know,
I'm not qualified to comment on it definitively, but I mean,
I think it's safe to.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
Say that had I don't know who could.
Speaker 4 (07:33):
Be considered the equivalent or even if there is an
equivalent of Charlie Kirk on the left, But had that
person been assassinated by some you know, right wing zelo,
then I think we all know what would have happened.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Right There would have been riots in the streets.
Speaker 4 (07:48):
There would have been burning and looting and the taking
over of college campuses and just you know, mass lawlessness
in the it.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
And on the right.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
When a guy who I think it is fair to
say was the standard bear for the right obviously, you know,
based on what you just said, you know, had a
great deal of impact on the younger generation, who hopefully,
you know, will respond better to this than our generation
has to crises. You know, their response was, you know,
no looting, no burning, no no criminality, no taking over
(08:27):
college campuses, no riots in the streets, no flipping over vehicles.
They decided to pray about it. And I don't care
what your stance is on organized religion, I don't care
what your stance is on theology, cosmology.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
That's a a better response and b.
Speaker 4 (08:49):
You know, somewhat eye opening as to the mentalities of
the opposite sides and what they're focused on.
Speaker 5 (08:59):
Right.
Speaker 4 (08:59):
And I think I've said on this podcast before one
of the key differences between conservativism generally is when you're
talking about a conservative and you say, well, what's a conservative,
I think most people would say, well, they hold to
more traditional values, whatever that means.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Right. So you say, well, okay, well what does that mean?
What is a traditional value?
Speaker 4 (09:17):
And generally speaking, those values arise out of your faith, right,
doesn't have to be a Christian faith. It could be Islamic,
it could be Buddhist, could be whatever, could be Jewish. Right,
but you have a faith, there is a higher power
to which you answer and in whom you put your trust,
and you are anchored in your worldview in your faith,
(09:39):
and your politics is simply an outgrowth of your faith.
Right Whereas on the left, because the left primarily is
you know, is anti faith, not paying with two broader brush,
there certainly people who would say, well, I'm left leaning
and I have a faith, and that's great, so I'm
not saying it's impossible, but you know, the the political side,
(10:02):
where you know, sort of anti god, atheistic side is
not going to be the conservative side is going to
be the more liberal side. And as a result, politics
is the religion of the left right. And so when
you're wondering, man, you talk to someone who's you know,
more right leaning and you have a political conversation. They
(10:23):
don't seem to be strident, they don't seem to be
in a panic, they don't seem to feel like, well,
if our politics doesn't succeed, the world's over. But when
you talk to someone on the left, you know, they
just immediately become very strident, very argumentative. You know, can't
understand why you think the way you think are accusing
you of, you know, everything from racism to transphobia to homophobia,
(10:48):
And all you're trying to do is have a conversation.
And you ask yourself, well, what's the difference there, And
the answer is, well, you have impugned their religion, right
is that is the core of their worldview, and you're
they see your attempt to have a discussion as an
assault on that, whereas on the right, you know that's
not the core of the rights worldview. The core of
(11:10):
their worldview is faith based, and so when you assault
their politics, they just go, well, okay, I mean we
can kind of disagree on that, move on, and.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
I think that's why.
Speaker 4 (11:20):
And anyone who is listening to this who would take
the position, well, that's not fair, that's not true. You know,
if someone on the left had been assassinated, we would
have prayed about it and have been peaceful, okay, But over
the last five or six years, that's never been the case.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
Okay, I mean that's so. I mean, if you want
to take the.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
Position that the left would have been as peaceable about
it as the right has been, okay, but you would
have to show me an example of that over the
last five years, because I certainly haven't seen that. And
I mean, buddy, you know, I mean, not only is
your like you said, your point well taken, and it's
interesting to observe that, and like you, I am hopeful
(12:00):
that the next generation is going to handle things, you know,
far far better than we have. And it is encouraging
to see that kind of response by young people. I mean,
in having some conversations with you know, folks who are
more on the left certainly seeing what has happened online
with people celebrating the assassination of a human being who
(12:22):
was a husband and a father, and at the time
he was assassinated, was simply having a conversation with a
college student.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
Right. He was advocating for the way he views the world.
Speaker 4 (12:34):
And had gone through the process of creating an environment
where people could openly challenge him.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
I think one of the things I did, you know,
I looked into him a little bit.
Speaker 4 (12:42):
After the assassination, because, like I said, I'd never heard
him speak, and he had this approach where he would say,
you know, pro prove I'm wrong. Like I want to
sit down here with you, and I'm going to present
a case on some topic, and then I want to
hear your response to it and will have a debate
about this topic. And if there is a way to
do politics right, well that that's the way you do it, right.
(13:04):
And he was killed for that period, right. I have
not heard anybody say, even on the rabid left, that
he was up there advocate advocating for violence or advocating
for the assassination of his opponents, which would therefore potentially
open the door for his own assassination. I've certainly heard
(13:26):
people say, well, he deserves this because he was a
Second Amendment advocate, which is just the dumbest thing. I mean,
if you're saying that to yourself, you're an idiot and
you need to re evaluate the whole way you think.
But I average people say that he was he was
a Second Amendment advocate, but he was not an advocate
(13:46):
for shooting innocent people. Because they're saying something you don't like.
There's a very distinct difference between saying, hey, I believe
that the Constitution is valuable, I believe that we should
uphold it, and I believe that it allows for the
right to bear arms, and I'm going.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
To support that right.
Speaker 4 (14:06):
I mean, that's a very different thing than saying, and
you know, because we have the right to bear arms,
we should just willing nearly shoot people.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
I never heard him say that.
Speaker 4 (14:16):
But if that's your position, if your position is that
it is a legitimate response to someone stating a position
that is different from yours, that it is a legitimate
response to assassinate that person, then stand by for the
world that you are asking to come into existence, because
(14:38):
you're basically saying, when I go out and talk about
my political position.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
If someone doesn't like it, they get to shoot me.
Speaker 5 (14:46):
I just don't know how anyone can reasonably say, Charlie
Kirk deserve to die because of what he said.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
Listen to what you're.
Speaker 4 (14:59):
Saying, and then you better never open your mouth again,
because you've you've you've opened the door to a world
in which stating something that someone else doesn't like almost
obligates them to shoot you. That's crazy, body.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
Yeah, no, it's it is, and it's it's interesting they
and I started thinking about this from a generational perspective too,
because to me, you know, politics is always a conversation,
that's what it's about, a conversation of ideas, and you
bring ideas to a marketplace and then voters decide what
ideas they like and what ideas they don't like and
(15:39):
the and I totally get, totally get that people have
different ideas on the right to bear arms and what
that means and that's fair, and you know, you regulate
arms and you do all that. I totally get that
people have the have different ideas on abortion policy or
(15:59):
medical transitioning. I get all that. But it seems to
me that we've created generations of people who are you know,
you know, maybe this generation ze. I don't even know
which one it was, what it is, but the one
where these kids, this this this kid is from where
(16:21):
people are equating ideas to violence, and they think that
I just having an idea that's contrary to a current narrative. Uh,
being espoused by a certain ideology is equivalent to shooting
a gun at somebody else in demands retribution, as opposed
(16:44):
to when you and I grew up, we had I
mean the a c l U used to protect free
speech and they don't do it anymore. And I mean
the I love debate. I mean you and I you know,
had this debate debate people all the time. And we've
just had someone on who we debated with, and uh,
(17:07):
it's not acrimonious, it's not leading to hard feelings, it
doesn't lead to threats and violence, as it shouldn't. It's
an idea, it's a it's a you know, the government
is a marketplace of ideas. You go, you consume, and
you you vote up for who you like. But to
to now take the position that there are certain ideas
you can't have because it runs contrary to a modern
(17:30):
woke ideology is scary. But I think your point is
also well taken. It's one that says, you know, be
careful what you wish for. And I and you know,
I hope it doesn't doesn't get to that. I mean,
I I've seen people try to kill Ronald Reagan, Gabby
Gifford was shot at. You know, Steve Scalisee was shot at.
(17:54):
But certainly when Reagan was shot at, I don't remember
anyone celebrating that. I mean I don't And and Abby
Gifford was shot at, I don't remember anyone celebrating that
would be that would literally be the product of an
insane mind to get up and start cheering when someone
was shot. The people that cheered when Kennedy was killed
were klu Klux klansmen, right, I mean, they were crazy
(18:18):
anti government people, crazy crazy anti government people. And we
have a society today where I've seen dozens and dozens
and I understand there are thousands and thousands of people
who basically said Charlie Kirk got what he deserved because
he spoke what he believed in. And you know, it
(18:38):
is scary. We had a town meeting last night and
there were there were police officers in front of the
middle school because there was a town meeting to determine
the fate of a teacher, a teacher who posted online
that Charlie Kirk got what was coming to him, a teacher,
a teacher. And this is not an isolated listen, this
is happening across the country. I mean, I like and
(19:00):
social media is accessible. It is disgusting, it is And
I made the mistake of watching the shoot you know,
I saw the shooting on social media. It's just one
of the I wish I could un see it. And
it's one of the most horrific things I've ever seen.
It's like the murder of that poor Ukrainian woman. Horrible.
I mean, just absolutely can never unsee that, never unring
that bell. But at the same time, you have people, insane,
(19:22):
people dancing around basically saying this guy got, this guy
who was murdered, assassinated in front of his wife and
two young daughters, what was coming to him because he
had ideas that were different than theirs. And that's that's
mental illness. That's not ideology, that's not politics. That is sickness.
And I am at a loss for how to even
(19:43):
have a conversation with people like that.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
Now you can't.
Speaker 4 (19:47):
I mean, I think that's, you know, if you know,
sort of the the upside I guess to that, to
the sense that there's even an upside, is that you
can look at people like that and say, well, I'm
not even gonna try, But they're going to have to
live over there in their craziness and in their echo
chamber and with their own debasement by themselves, because I'm
not going to go over there and try to have
(20:10):
a conversation with them. There are definitely people on the
left who recognize how.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Terrible this is and who you know, have openly.
Speaker 4 (20:17):
Said there and you know, it's fair to just point
out there have been just as many people who did
not like what Churley Kirk had to say and did
not you know, agree with what he was espousing, and
would not want a world in which, you know, his
ideology was the dominant ideology have said, well, you just
can't do this, right, You just this is not what
(20:38):
we want to do.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
No butts right.
Speaker 4 (20:40):
I've read a number of articles from left leaning publications
that you know, open the opening paragraph is, hey shouldn't
kill people, and then the rest of the paragraphs are.
But you know, and as soon as you put a
butt in that, you're over there and that crowd of
people that I can't talk to, right, I mean, it's
you can't shoot people for their ideal. You can't murder
(21:00):
people for their ideology, no matter what it is, full stop, Okay,
I mean that's it. You have to put a period
at the end of that sense and end your story.
And yeah, I mean there's just no again. You think
about the world. Let's just say you hate Charlie Kirk
with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns, and
(21:21):
let's just say that in your dark little heart of heart, you're.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
Glad he's dead.
Speaker 4 (21:25):
Think about the world that you're asking for. I mean,
I realize I'm repeating myself, but you're asking for a
world in which going into a public forum and stating
an ideology is grounds.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
For your own murder. So if that's true for Charlie Kirk,
it's true for.
Speaker 4 (21:46):
Everybody, no matter what your ideology may be.
Speaker 2 (21:51):
Okay, that is the door that you open.
Speaker 4 (21:53):
You don't get to open that door and say, well,
only if it's someone who disagrees with me, right, You
don't get to establish that what you are establishing is
that if you espouse an ideology that runs contrary to
someone who happens to have a gun, then they get
to shoot you for it. And that applies to you
(22:16):
as well as to Charlie Kirk. And that's what you're
asking for. And so not only do you have to
be subhuman to celebrate the assassination of anyone, you have
to be an idiot to want to establish that as
the world in which we all live in.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
And Buddy, what it arises from.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
I was having this conversation with my old man who
was visiting for a while here and who had asked me,
is like, how do people like get there? I mean,
he was asking the reasonable question. He's well into his eighties, right,
and so he grew up in a much much different time,
a time when there is an equal number of.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
Guns, by the way, I mean, just for the record.
Speaker 4 (22:55):
And probably more people commonly had them when he was
growing up, because you know, hunting was and still in
certain places the way you ate right as you had
to go and hunt an animal.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
So that you could eat it. And he's like, how
do we get here? And I said, well, Dad, you know,
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (23:13):
I'm not qualified to comment on that, but I do
think social media plays a huge role because what happens
is and everybody knows this, but you know, the algorithm
feeds you what you want, and on the political side,
it feeds you things that a tell you your ideology
is correct, but perhaps even more importantly in terms of
(23:34):
being worse, it also tells you that people that hold
an opposite ideology are not only wrong but dangerous. And
that's all you get. And when you have a weak mind,
and all of these people dancing around over Charlie Kirk's
death have weak minds. They have not thought about it,
(23:56):
perhaps lack the capability to think about it. When you
have a weak mind, and all that you're fed is, hey,
whatever it is you believe in, you're right. Here's all
a whole bunch of people who think just like you
telling you you're right. And then on the same time
they tell you that the people on the opposite side
of an ideology are wrong and dangerous. Then you can
(24:20):
see where those with the weakest minds would say, well,
it's almost my duty to go and you know, impose
violence on these people who are wrong and dangerous. And
beyond the social media I mean, the quote unquote leadership
(24:41):
of the left needs to take some responsibility. You start
telling people that your political opponents are the equivalent of Nazis,
and that this country is going to wind up like
Germany under the Nazis, and that if you hold a
(25:02):
liberal ideology, you're going to wind up in concentration camps
like the Jews did. And that is the messaging off
the left, that is the messaging. Then you bear responsibility
when you're messaging takes effect. When some weak minded idiot says,
(25:23):
Charlie Kirk is going to wind up putting my friends
in concentration camps, They're.
Speaker 2 (25:30):
Going to shoot at him. That's just is what it is.
Speaker 4 (25:33):
And there's just no getting around the fact that that's
the net result of what has been years of messaging
about you know, Trump or Maga or whatever it is
that you however they want to frame it, that's what happens,
and they're responsible for it.
Speaker 3 (25:53):
Yeah, you see it with the Charlie Kirk thing. You
see it with remember the kid that assassinated the health
CEO in New York, walked up the hether and shot
him in the head or back or whatever. I mean,
you see it there and to me, it's what's interesting
about all of this is again I come back to
(26:15):
the reactions, right, and again you know, the prayer, vigils
and all that, and then you get to what the
motivation is on the other side, right, because it seems
like the folks that are supportive of Kirk are grounded
in God and their religion, and so they use that
to cope with a horrific situation. And that's how they cope.
(26:37):
They pray, and they they use prayer to figure it out, right,
to figure out where they're going and how to get
there even through tough times. Right, they have a a
pretty firm foundation. Whereas like the kid that shot Charlie
(26:57):
Kirk was in some group text he basically said, look,
there's some ideas that you know, you just have to
you have to take steps to eradicate there. You can't
come back from those ideas. And then talking about Charlie
Kirk and the kid who shot the healthcare CEO doesn't
like the way the healthcare system in this country works,
so he justified in shooting this guy. And all the
(27:20):
people that celebrate this craziness, in dancing on TikTok and
all that stuff. They don't have a faith to fall
back on, right, Their faith is their ideology. Their faith
is their their their indoctrinated beliefs in a set of
rules that you know, they have to have and they
(27:45):
have to have everyone else accept or else they're gonna
you know, there's gonna be there's gonna be violence. And
I mean that that's one way I've sort of looked
at this because the people, the people that you see
reacting to this, and then you look at those group
texts that the killer had about Charlie Kirk, Well, he's
(28:07):
a group text with a bunch of people and they're
just talking about the fact that, look, this is how
you deal with speech. We don't like you shoot them,
you take them out. And you know, I'm very glad
that there are some people on the left that have
stood up and said this is, this is this act
(28:31):
was wrong. Bernie Sanders recorded a video that I thought
was good, but it's the Nazi calls. You know, I
mean Trump was almost killed, and I mean, heaven forbid
that happened, because I think that would have resulted in
serious violence going the other way. And you know that
that I don't know how you come back from something
(28:51):
like that. But the way two sides deal with grief
or feeling aggrieved is very, very different. And I don't
know where. I don't know where this head's right for
folks to be at such a divide and with no
(29:13):
vehicle to communicate, you know, the only thing that can
happen is a certain segment is just ostracized and left
to the side. I'm just not sure the unless there's
some leader that comes out and bridges that gap on
the left. And I think that gap is on the left,
(29:34):
which I think would be great, but I don't necessarily
see that happening, but that you know, that's how I've
sort of that's how I've sort of looked at this,
and it would be nice if there were a leader,
and I think it has to come from the left
that could get up in front of these folks in
a you know, remember the Clinton's Sister Soldient moment where
(29:56):
he called that those rap lyrics. Obviously this is much
more important, but says, look, this is this, this is abhorrent,
this is this is disgusting. This is not tolerated. Not
we can't tolerate it. You know, people who act in
such a way to condone and then to celebrate assassinations
in this country will be ostracized and will not be
(30:18):
welcome in this in this party. I think that's I
think that's the step that needs to take place. It's
almost like a reverse like, well, it's like a me
too thing right where they went back and looked at
all these people that had interactions with women that were
inappropriate or whatever over forty or fifty years. It's almost
like some sort of purge has to go on on
(30:40):
the left with folks that are you know, I don't
want to say irredeemable, because everyone's redeemable, but folks who
behaved in such a way to condone and in some
ways encourage political violence.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Well, but I agree with you, and I think.
Speaker 4 (31:00):
And obviously many many people hate Donald Trump, and that's fine.
Speaker 3 (31:04):
I mean, you're you're.
Speaker 4 (31:05):
Entitled to do that. I think much of that is,
you know, without foundation. I'm not saying that you can
dislike or even hate someone that you have to have
some great foundation for it.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
You can just have a visceral response and say, well,
you know, I don't like that person.
Speaker 4 (31:20):
But I think for many people who feel that way
about Trump, when you when you ask him, you're like, well,
good guy.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
I mean, what did the guy do that? You know
that that you you.
Speaker 4 (31:28):
Know, if he says hey, you just automatically say, be right,
whatever a is. I mean, if a was, hey, let's
stop killing baby seals, you would just say, I don't know,
maybe those baby seals should go, right because Donald Trump wants.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
To protect them. I mean, you you got to give
more thought than that.
Speaker 4 (31:46):
And to say, well, the guy says really mean, you know,
really obnoxious, really annoying things is both true and largely irrelevant, right,
I mean, it's just just all kinds of people say
all kinds of things, and most people don't.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
Freak out about it. Right.
Speaker 4 (32:03):
But Trump is again for better or for worse, And
you can stand on either side of this or in
the middle or.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
Somewhere in between. He represents, you know, the leadership he.
Speaker 4 (32:14):
Is, that that individual who if he says to his base,
this is the way we out approach this, you know
most of that base is.
Speaker 3 (32:23):
Going to listen.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
I don't think there is someone on the left. If
there is, I don't know who it.
Speaker 4 (32:27):
Is, right, I mean, there isn't a you know, and
it wasn't really a race between Trump and Kamala Harris.
I mean, despite all of the impetus against Trump, wasn't
even really close, right. I mean, Kamala Harris is not
that person. Joe Biden was not that person.
Speaker 5 (32:43):
Right.
Speaker 4 (32:43):
I've yet to see Gavin Newsom is not that person.
And I've yet to see someone stand up on the
left kind of like Kennedy did and rally the troops
and be in a position to give guidance, be in
a position to be the one who puts their it
down and says, you know, we can it's politics up
to here. Beyond here, it's lunacy and violence. Right, So
(33:06):
I agree with you. I don't know who that person is.
Speaker 3 (33:10):
And you know.
Speaker 4 (33:12):
We're violence begets violence, it always has that's the way
we are as human beings. And I realize I've said
it a dozen times now, but you've just opened the
door for a world in which someone can walk up
while you're espousing an ideology, whatever it may be, something,
just walk up and shoo jam and if everyone turns
(33:32):
them and goes, well, holy smokes, I mean you just
shut that guy. You go, yeah, I didn't like what
he was saying. And then someone says, well wait a minute.
They could personally just go no, no, no. I mean, that's
that's how we do it. Remember Charlie Kirk, you know,
remember Scullies, remember Giffert, remember all these people.
Speaker 2 (33:47):
You know, that's that's how we do it.
Speaker 4 (33:50):
And you cannot complain when the shoes on the other foot.
You simply have no grounds for complaint. And but you
just put a pin in. And this whole Second Amendment thing,
I've just I've had it with the debate around this.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
Okay, So let's start with the fact that the Second.
Speaker 4 (34:11):
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States gives citizens
the United States the right to bear arms. Now, you
can say that's bad, the Constitution shouldn't do that.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
That's fine.
Speaker 4 (34:22):
You can take that position. But in order to change it,
you would have to alter the Constitution. There is a
process for that, and it can be done. And if
in this country we ever get to the point where
we say, you know what, we want to remove that
statement from the Constitution, there is a methodology for doing that.
Speaker 2 (34:38):
The fact that we haven't done it.
Speaker 4 (34:40):
Means that there isn't the impetus in this country to
do it. Okay, So let's all agree that the Second
Amendment exists. It is in the Constitution, and it is
in there today, and it provides the right to bear arms.
It does not provide the right to willy nilly use them. Okay,
there's a different between those two things. I would agree.
(35:03):
I don't own a gun, but I am in a
very small percentage of people who happen to be exceptionally
well trained in their use. I have used a number
of them of different types in different situations, and I'm
freaking good at it, and it's a tool in my mind.
And the reason I don't own one now is because
I don't need that tool.
Speaker 2 (35:22):
Now.
Speaker 4 (35:23):
Okay, there are people who feel like they need that tool,
and perhaps they do.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
I don't, so I don't own one. Okay.
Speaker 4 (35:28):
So I'm someone who I'm telling you the Second Amendment exists.
I'm telling you it doesn't matter whether or not you
like it.
Speaker 2 (35:35):
It's in there. It allows the right to bear arms.
It does not allow the right to willy nilly use them.
Speaker 4 (35:40):
I would even take the position that I don't see
a good case for anyone needing fully automatic weapons, even
in a tactical environment when you're engaged in combat. Rare
is the need to flip your selector to auto it's
generally speaking ineffective, and there are only a couple of
times where it's the wise use of your limited ammunition
(36:05):
to just dump a mag in a general direction if
you're ambushed something of that nature. Maybe, but generally speaking,
you know, well trained operatives with weapons are not going.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
To use So I think I would even fall on
the side. I haven't really given a ton of thought
because it just doesn't, you know, impact me on a
daily basis.
Speaker 4 (36:23):
But I would say, fine, you know, we want to
get rid of a fully automatic weapons, get rid of
and I believe that's the law anyway, Okay, but I
am not going to have this conversation with anyone until
they show me the video of the gun floating down
the street all by itself with an angry look on
its face and aiming itself at somebody and then pulling
(36:48):
its own trigger.
Speaker 2 (36:49):
Until you can show me that video.
Speaker 4 (36:51):
I'm tired of people blaming this behavior on the existence
of firearms. That's stupid, that's childish, that's a childish approach.
The problem is the state of our cultural mental health
is what results in this violence. And if you want
(37:12):
an example, and don't tell me, oh, because the guns exist,
people decide to shoot somebody. That's ridiculous. You're on a
train in Charlotte. That twenty three year old Ukrainian gal
wasn't shot, she was stabbed.
Speaker 5 (37:28):
Ok.
Speaker 4 (37:29):
And if you took all the guns away, it wouldn't
remove the crazy, It wouldn't remove.
Speaker 2 (37:36):
The desire for violence.
Speaker 4 (37:39):
It wouldn't remove the decision that your ideological opponents deserve
physical punishment up to the point of death. And if
you didn't have a gun, you'd use something else, just
like the guy did on the train.
Speaker 2 (37:51):
So just stop it. If you want to have a
discussion about why shootings occur, I'm happy to have that
discussion with you, but that discussion will be around the
mental state.
Speaker 4 (38:00):
Of our culture, not around the existence of a tool
which with which you can inflict violence, because again, do
away with this tool, people are just going to pick
up that tool.
Speaker 3 (38:11):
That's right, I mean. And you know, the other thing
I noticed is that a lot of people also, you know,
brought up the Second Amendment in making fun of the assassination, saying, well,
you wanted guns to be you know, you want to
support the Second Amendment, so you get what you reap
what you sew or nonsense just total nonsense. But again,
(38:32):
and this is a broader discussion that we'll say for
another day. But there is a question, a generational question
about taking responsibility for one's actions that is just not
present in certain generations. Right They the more recent generations,
they can't, all due respect, they can't compete in the
marketplace of ideas, right, they can't combat words. They fear words,
(38:58):
especially words that prove their ideology to be lacking, severely lacking,
and so they combat that with violence, and then they
throw up any false flag they can to justify the violence.
So that's it, and that's look, that's that is what
it is. That is where we are. This is sort
of a somber episode, but I can I can promise
(39:18):
everyone this the next episode of the Printaman Chief podcast
will take more of a lighthearted tone as we attack
these issues. But I thought, you know, this is an
important discussion to have, in particular this week.
Speaker 2 (39:31):
I completely agree, and it's good to have it with you, buddy.
I mean, I'm glad we have this form. I don't
know that anyone else listens, but I don't care.
Speaker 4 (39:39):
I'm glad that you and I have this form to
have these discussions and kind of air these ideas out
and kind of, you know, hold each other accountable and
think there's things through and hopefully that's beneficial for anybody
who may be listening.
Speaker 2 (39:51):
And while next week's episode hopefully.
Speaker 4 (39:54):
Will not be anywhere near a somber we will continue
to do that. We will continue to beat around issues
and work our way through them, from the ridiculous to
the sublime, and we'll do it next week right here
on IP frequently.
Speaker 1 (40:08):
This has been IP frequently, once again clearing a forest
of lies with the machete of truth.
Speaker 2 (40:16):
You're welcome.
In these bleak days, humanity is at a breaking point.
Economies are tanking, the woke mob is canceling everything, and
the little guy who's just trying to run a small
business is getting screwed from both ends. But not all
is lost. Amidst the chaos, two men offer up their
(00:26):
voices in the darkness, dropping two thousand pounds laser guided
truth bombs on today's lunacy, introducing the Sirens of Sanity,
David Pridham and l Bradley Sheaf.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Stop what's going.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
Well there? It is, brad One of the great songs
of all time. I believe it was and h featured
in Forrest Gump at some point. For what It's Worth
by the uh the Great Crosby, Stills and Nash, and
also covered by one Rick Springfield, who in the eighties you,
I'm sure you had a couple of concert t shirts
(01:16):
with the great Rick Springfield. But Jesse's Girl, Remember Jesse's Girl?
It was him?
Speaker 2 (01:20):
I do remember Jesse's Girl. Yeah, good fit.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
I think he was on a soap opera too.
Speaker 4 (01:25):
I think this might have been more Buffalo Springfield, which
is different than Rick Springfield. They're in the same family, obviously,
they have brothers brothers anyway, So that's all that.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
It's David Prittiman Bradschief back here on the Printiman Chief
IP frequently we mean business podcast where we talk everything
world of business and pop culture. We're here on the
iHeartRadio Podcast radio network each week, each and every week.
(01:57):
Without regard for our own well being, our peace of mind,
our sanity, we are here each and every week. Remember
to subscribe and rate and review the podcast and then
encourage your friends to do it as well. And you
can learn more about our show on our website IP
(02:18):
frequently dot com and follow us on social media at
I p underscore frequently. That's all you type in and
you get all the latest exciting news that's fit to print.
So Brad, Uh. Interesting week, probably one of the toughest
weeks we've had in this country in a long time.
(02:41):
The week was was uh, you know, last week or
so has been filled with, you know, the assassination of
Charlie Kirk, the celebration of that assassination by thousands of
people online and presumably many many more. The right flank
(03:05):
and the left flank of this country are pretty much
at war with one another in terms of what this
all means for the country. None of it, none of
it is good. And you know, it struck me. I
sort of took some time to think about this and
talk to our pastor here at our church about the
message he was going to deliver. But you know what,
(03:28):
what I thought was very interesting about this whole thing
was the reaction of folks. And sure, there are folks
who are going to be focused on the how this
happened and what has happened and really what has happened
to our culture in this country, and it's a very
important discussion to have, and there's a day for that.
(03:51):
But in the wake of this tragedy, right tragedy, there
has been and uprising in folks who are heartbroken by
this assassination. And you know, I'll just say I did
not I've seen Charlie Kirk, I've seen some of his messaging.
(04:15):
I've never had a big issue with him. I thought
a lot of the stuff he did was very clever.
He knew how to mobilize people and organize on the right,
and I thought that was very very interesting. But I
never had a sense for the hold he had on
the youth of America until we saw the reaction, and
the reaction I saw in videos and news reports and
(04:39):
news articles across the country on college campuses were kids
getting together, kids getting together, high school kids getting together
and having prayer vigils and praying about this. And my
daughter and son go to a Christian school and there
was a message sent from the youth pastor at the
(05:02):
school to all the kids about how they should respond
and how there was an open forum for prayer and discussion,
and they took advantage of that, and all the kids
had a special chapel around this issue. And I can't
help but feel really good about that, right about the
fact that this didn't devolve into civil war after this happened.
(05:26):
You know, we've been through a lot in this country
with COVID, and then before COVID, with the George Floyd
riots and the stuff, the looting and the killings that
went on across this country. And I think we've had
enough of that. And so the one thing I do
take away from this, if there's anything good to take away,
is how are a lot of our youth has reacted
(05:49):
in a sort of faith reaffirming way. And I think
that I, you know, if you've got to look for
a good side to this. I think I think that's
it from my perspective.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
Well, but I think that's well taken, and I think
you're right. I saw much the same thing. And I
will state for the record right out of the gate
that I never heard a peep out of Charlie Kirk.
I mean, as you know, as people who listen to
this podcast know, I can't do it. I don't enjoy politics.
I've never really enjoyed politics, even when I was younger,
(06:25):
and I certainly don't now.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
And so I very purposely.
Speaker 4 (06:29):
I don't distance myself necessarily, but I make no effort
to bring politics into my life. And so I knew
who Charlie Kirk was. I knew he was a conservative.
I don't know what's the best way to put an
activist speaker politician basically who you know, had not yet,
(06:49):
to my knowledge, run for office, but you know, I'm sure.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Would have, and so, but I had never heard him speak.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
And I do think it's interesting two, you know, sort
of follow along with what you were saying, the difference
in response between crises on the right and crises on
the left.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
And you know, I'm not qualified.
Speaker 4 (07:18):
I have some you know, I have some opinions on
why those two things are so radically different, but you know,
I'm not qualified to comment on it definitively, but I mean,
I think it's safe to.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
Say that had I don't know who could.
Speaker 4 (07:33):
Be considered the equivalent or even if there is an
equivalent of Charlie Kirk on the left, But had that
person been assassinated by some you know, right wing zelo,
then I think we all know what would have happened.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Right There would have been riots in the streets.
Speaker 4 (07:48):
There would have been burning and looting and the taking
over of college campuses and just you know, mass lawlessness
in the it.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
And on the right.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
When a guy who I think it is fair to
say was the standard bear for the right obviously, you know,
based on what you just said, you know, had a
great deal of impact on the younger generation, who hopefully,
you know, will respond better to this than our generation
has to crises. You know, their response was, you know,
no looting, no burning, no no criminality, no taking over
(08:27):
college campuses, no riots in the streets, no flipping over vehicles.
They decided to pray about it. And I don't care
what your stance is on organized religion, I don't care
what your stance is on theology, cosmology.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
That's a a better response and b.
Speaker 4 (08:49):
You know, somewhat eye opening as to the mentalities of
the opposite sides and what they're focused on.
Speaker 5 (08:59):
Right.
Speaker 4 (08:59):
And I think I've said on this podcast before one
of the key differences between conservativism generally is when you're
talking about a conservative and you say, well, what's a conservative,
I think most people would say, well, they hold to
more traditional values, whatever that means.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Right. So you say, well, okay, well what does that mean?
What is a traditional value?
Speaker 4 (09:17):
And generally speaking, those values arise out of your faith, right,
doesn't have to be a Christian faith. It could be Islamic,
it could be Buddhist, could be whatever, could be Jewish. Right,
but you have a faith, there is a higher power
to which you answer and in whom you put your trust,
and you are anchored in your worldview in your faith,
(09:39):
and your politics is simply an outgrowth of your faith.
Right Whereas on the left, because the left primarily is
you know, is anti faith, not paying with two broader brush,
there certainly people who would say, well, I'm left leaning
and I have a faith, and that's great, so I'm
not saying it's impossible, but you know, the the political side,
(10:02):
where you know, sort of anti god, atheistic side is
not going to be the conservative side is going to
be the more liberal side. And as a result, politics
is the religion of the left right. And so when
you're wondering, man, you talk to someone who's you know,
more right leaning and you have a political conversation. They
(10:23):
don't seem to be strident, they don't seem to be
in a panic, they don't seem to feel like, well,
if our politics doesn't succeed, the world's over. But when
you talk to someone on the left, you know, they
just immediately become very strident, very argumentative. You know, can't
understand why you think the way you think are accusing
you of, you know, everything from racism to transphobia to homophobia,
(10:48):
And all you're trying to do is have a conversation.
And you ask yourself, well, what's the difference there, And
the answer is, well, you have impugned their religion, right
is that is the core of their worldview, and you're
they see your attempt to have a discussion as an
assault on that, whereas on the right, you know that's
not the core of the rights worldview. The core of
(11:10):
their worldview is faith based, and so when you assault
their politics, they just go, well, okay, I mean we
can kind of disagree on that, move on, and.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
I think that's why.
Speaker 4 (11:20):
And anyone who is listening to this who would take
the position, well, that's not fair, that's not true. You know,
if someone on the left had been assassinated, we would
have prayed about it and have been peaceful, okay, But over
the last five or six years, that's never been the case.
Speaker 2 (11:35):
Okay, I mean that's so. I mean, if you want
to take the.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
Position that the left would have been as peaceable about
it as the right has been, okay, but you would
have to show me an example of that over the
last five years, because I certainly haven't seen that. And
I mean, buddy, you know, I mean, not only is
your like you said, your point well taken, and it's
interesting to observe that, and like you, I am hopeful
(12:00):
that the next generation is going to handle things, you know,
far far better than we have. And it is encouraging
to see that kind of response by young people. I mean,
in having some conversations with you know, folks who are
more on the left certainly seeing what has happened online
with people celebrating the assassination of a human being who
(12:22):
was a husband and a father, and at the time
he was assassinated, was simply having a conversation with a
college student.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
Right. He was advocating for the way he views the world.
Speaker 4 (12:34):
And had gone through the process of creating an environment
where people could openly challenge him.
Speaker 2 (12:40):
I think one of the things I did, you know,
I looked into him a little bit.
Speaker 4 (12:42):
After the assassination, because, like I said, I'd never heard
him speak, and he had this approach where he would say,
you know, pro prove I'm wrong. Like I want to
sit down here with you, and I'm going to present
a case on some topic, and then I want to
hear your response to it and will have a debate
about this topic. And if there is a way to
do politics right, well that that's the way you do it, right.
(13:04):
And he was killed for that period, right. I have
not heard anybody say, even on the rabid left, that
he was up there advocate advocating for violence or advocating
for the assassination of his opponents, which would therefore potentially
open the door for his own assassination. I've certainly heard
(13:26):
people say, well, he deserves this because he was a
Second Amendment advocate, which is just the dumbest thing. I mean,
if you're saying that to yourself, you're an idiot and
you need to re evaluate the whole way you think.
But I average people say that he was he was
a Second Amendment advocate, but he was not an advocate
(13:46):
for shooting innocent people. Because they're saying something you don't like.
There's a very distinct difference between saying, hey, I believe
that the Constitution is valuable, I believe that we should
uphold it, and I believe that it allows for the
right to bear arms, and I'm going.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
To support that right.
Speaker 4 (14:06):
I mean, that's a very different thing than saying, and
you know, because we have the right to bear arms,
we should just willing nearly shoot people.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
I never heard him say that.
Speaker 4 (14:16):
But if that's your position, if your position is that
it is a legitimate response to someone stating a position
that is different from yours, that it is a legitimate
response to assassinate that person, then stand by for the
world that you are asking to come into existence, because
(14:38):
you're basically saying, when I go out and talk about
my political position.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
If someone doesn't like it, they get to shoot me.
Speaker 5 (14:46):
I just don't know how anyone can reasonably say, Charlie
Kirk deserve to die because of what he said.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
Listen to what you're.
Speaker 4 (14:59):
Saying, and then you better never open your mouth again,
because you've you've you've opened the door to a world
in which stating something that someone else doesn't like almost
obligates them to shoot you. That's crazy, body.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
Yeah, no, it's it is, and it's it's interesting they
and I started thinking about this from a generational perspective too,
because to me, you know, politics is always a conversation,
that's what it's about, a conversation of ideas, and you
bring ideas to a marketplace and then voters decide what
ideas they like and what ideas they don't like and
(15:39):
the and I totally get, totally get that people have
different ideas on the right to bear arms and what
that means and that's fair, and you know, you regulate
arms and you do all that. I totally get that
people have the have different ideas on abortion policy or
(15:59):
medical transitioning. I get all that. But it seems to
me that we've created generations of people who are you know,
you know, maybe this generation ze. I don't even know
which one it was, what it is, but the one
where these kids, this this this kid is from where
(16:21):
people are equating ideas to violence, and they think that
I just having an idea that's contrary to a current narrative. Uh,
being espoused by a certain ideology is equivalent to shooting
a gun at somebody else in demands retribution, as opposed
(16:44):
to when you and I grew up, we had I
mean the a c l U used to protect free
speech and they don't do it anymore. And I mean
the I love debate. I mean you and I you know,
had this debate debate people all the time. And we've
just had someone on who we debated with, and uh,
(17:07):
it's not acrimonious, it's not leading to hard feelings, it
doesn't lead to threats and violence, as it shouldn't. It's
an idea, it's a it's a you know, the government
is a marketplace of ideas. You go, you consume, and
you you vote up for who you like. But to
to now take the position that there are certain ideas
you can't have because it runs contrary to a modern
(17:30):
woke ideology is scary. But I think your point is
also well taken. It's one that says, you know, be
careful what you wish for. And I and you know,
I hope it doesn't doesn't get to that. I mean,
I I've seen people try to kill Ronald Reagan, Gabby
Gifford was shot at. You know, Steve Scalisee was shot at.
(17:54):
But certainly when Reagan was shot at, I don't remember
anyone celebrating that. I mean I don't And and Abby
Gifford was shot at, I don't remember anyone celebrating that
would be that would literally be the product of an
insane mind to get up and start cheering when someone
was shot. The people that cheered when Kennedy was killed
were klu Klux klansmen, right, I mean, they were crazy
(18:18):
anti government people, crazy crazy anti government people. And we
have a society today where I've seen dozens and dozens
and I understand there are thousands and thousands of people
who basically said Charlie Kirk got what he deserved because
he spoke what he believed in. And you know, it
(18:38):
is scary. We had a town meeting last night and
there were there were police officers in front of the
middle school because there was a town meeting to determine
the fate of a teacher, a teacher who posted online
that Charlie Kirk got what was coming to him, a teacher,
a teacher. And this is not an isolated listen, this
is happening across the country. I mean, I like and
(19:00):
social media is accessible. It is disgusting, it is And
I made the mistake of watching the shoot you know,
I saw the shooting on social media. It's just one
of the I wish I could un see it. And
it's one of the most horrific things I've ever seen.
It's like the murder of that poor Ukrainian woman. Horrible.
I mean, just absolutely can never unsee that, never unring
that bell. But at the same time, you have people, insane,
(19:22):
people dancing around basically saying this guy got, this guy
who was murdered, assassinated in front of his wife and
two young daughters, what was coming to him because he
had ideas that were different than theirs. And that's that's
mental illness. That's not ideology, that's not politics. That is sickness.
And I am at a loss for how to even
(19:43):
have a conversation with people like that.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
Now you can't.
Speaker 4 (19:47):
I mean, I think that's, you know, if you know,
sort of the the upside I guess to that, to
the sense that there's even an upside, is that you
can look at people like that and say, well, I'm
not even gonna try, But they're going to have to
live over there in their craziness and in their echo
chamber and with their own debasement by themselves, because I'm
not going to go over there and try to have
(20:10):
a conversation with them. There are definitely people on the
left who recognize how.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Terrible this is and who you know, have openly.
Speaker 4 (20:17):
Said there and you know, it's fair to just point
out there have been just as many people who did
not like what Churley Kirk had to say and did
not you know, agree with what he was espousing, and
would not want a world in which, you know, his
ideology was the dominant ideology have said, well, you just
can't do this, right, You just this is not what
(20:38):
we want to do.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
No butts right.
Speaker 4 (20:40):
I've read a number of articles from left leaning publications
that you know, open the opening paragraph is, hey shouldn't
kill people, and then the rest of the paragraphs are.
But you know, and as soon as you put a
butt in that, you're over there and that crowd of
people that I can't talk to, right, I mean, it's
you can't shoot people for their ideal. You can't murder
(21:00):
people for their ideology, no matter what it is, full stop, Okay,
I mean that's it. You have to put a period
at the end of that sense and end your story.
And yeah, I mean there's just no again. You think
about the world. Let's just say you hate Charlie Kirk
with the white hot intensity of a thousand suns, and
(21:21):
let's just say that in your dark little heart of heart, you're.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
Glad he's dead.
Speaker 4 (21:25):
Think about the world that you're asking for. I mean,
I realize I'm repeating myself, but you're asking for a
world in which going into a public forum and stating
an ideology is grounds.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
For your own murder. So if that's true for Charlie Kirk,
it's true for.
Speaker 4 (21:46):
Everybody, no matter what your ideology may be.
Speaker 2 (21:51):
Okay, that is the door that you open.
Speaker 4 (21:53):
You don't get to open that door and say, well,
only if it's someone who disagrees with me, right, You
don't get to establish that what you are establishing is
that if you espouse an ideology that runs contrary to
someone who happens to have a gun, then they get
to shoot you for it. And that applies to you
(22:16):
as well as to Charlie Kirk. And that's what you're
asking for. And so not only do you have to
be subhuman to celebrate the assassination of anyone, you have
to be an idiot to want to establish that as
the world in which we all live in.
Speaker 2 (22:35):
And Buddy, what it arises from.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
I was having this conversation with my old man who
was visiting for a while here and who had asked me,
is like, how do people like get there? I mean,
he was asking the reasonable question. He's well into his eighties, right,
and so he grew up in a much much different time,
a time when there is an equal number of.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
Guns, by the way, I mean, just for the record.
Speaker 4 (22:55):
And probably more people commonly had them when he was
growing up, because you know, hunting was and still in
certain places the way you ate right as you had
to go and hunt an animal.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
So that you could eat it. And he's like, how
do we get here? And I said, well, Dad, you know,
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (23:13):
I'm not qualified to comment on that, but I do
think social media plays a huge role because what happens
is and everybody knows this, but you know, the algorithm
feeds you what you want, and on the political side,
it feeds you things that a tell you your ideology
is correct, but perhaps even more importantly in terms of
(23:34):
being worse, it also tells you that people that hold
an opposite ideology are not only wrong but dangerous. And
that's all you get. And when you have a weak mind,
and all of these people dancing around over Charlie Kirk's
death have weak minds. They have not thought about it,
(23:56):
perhaps lack the capability to think about it. When you
have a weak mind, and all that you're fed is, hey,
whatever it is you believe in, you're right. Here's all
a whole bunch of people who think just like you
telling you you're right. And then on the same time
they tell you that the people on the opposite side
of an ideology are wrong and dangerous. Then you can
(24:20):
see where those with the weakest minds would say, well,
it's almost my duty to go and you know, impose
violence on these people who are wrong and dangerous. And
beyond the social media I mean, the quote unquote leadership
(24:41):
of the left needs to take some responsibility. You start
telling people that your political opponents are the equivalent of Nazis,
and that this country is going to wind up like
Germany under the Nazis, and that if you hold a
(25:02):
liberal ideology, you're going to wind up in concentration camps
like the Jews did. And that is the messaging off
the left, that is the messaging. Then you bear responsibility
when you're messaging takes effect. When some weak minded idiot says,
(25:23):
Charlie Kirk is going to wind up putting my friends
in concentration camps, They're.
Speaker 2 (25:30):
Going to shoot at him. That's just is what it is.
Speaker 4 (25:33):
And there's just no getting around the fact that that's
the net result of what has been years of messaging
about you know, Trump or Maga or whatever it is
that you however they want to frame it, that's what happens,
and they're responsible for it.
Speaker 3 (25:53):
Yeah, you see it with the Charlie Kirk thing. You
see it with remember the kid that assassinated the health
CEO in New York, walked up the hether and shot
him in the head or back or whatever. I mean,
you see it there and to me, it's what's interesting
about all of this is again I come back to
(26:15):
the reactions, right, and again you know, the prayer, vigils
and all that, and then you get to what the
motivation is on the other side, right, because it seems
like the folks that are supportive of Kirk are grounded
in God and their religion, and so they use that
to cope with a horrific situation. And that's how they cope.
(26:37):
They pray, and they they use prayer to figure it out, right,
to figure out where they're going and how to get
there even through tough times. Right, they have a a
pretty firm foundation. Whereas like the kid that shot Charlie
(26:57):
Kirk was in some group text he basically said, look,
there's some ideas that you know, you just have to
you have to take steps to eradicate there. You can't
come back from those ideas. And then talking about Charlie
Kirk and the kid who shot the healthcare CEO doesn't
like the way the healthcare system in this country works,
so he justified in shooting this guy. And all the
(27:20):
people that celebrate this craziness, in dancing on TikTok and
all that stuff. They don't have a faith to fall
back on, right, Their faith is their ideology. Their faith
is their their their indoctrinated beliefs in a set of
rules that you know, they have to have and they
(27:45):
have to have everyone else accept or else they're gonna
you know, there's gonna be there's gonna be violence. And
I mean that that's one way I've sort of looked
at this because the people, the people that you see
reacting to this, and then you look at those group
texts that the killer had about Charlie Kirk, Well, he's
(28:07):
a group text with a bunch of people and they're
just talking about the fact that, look, this is how
you deal with speech. We don't like you shoot them,
you take them out. And you know, I'm very glad
that there are some people on the left that have
stood up and said this is, this is this act
(28:31):
was wrong. Bernie Sanders recorded a video that I thought
was good, but it's the Nazi calls. You know, I
mean Trump was almost killed, and I mean, heaven forbid
that happened, because I think that would have resulted in
serious violence going the other way. And you know that
that I don't know how you come back from something
(28:51):
like that. But the way two sides deal with grief
or feeling aggrieved is very, very different. And I don't
know where. I don't know where this head's right for
folks to be at such a divide and with no
(29:13):
vehicle to communicate, you know, the only thing that can
happen is a certain segment is just ostracized and left
to the side. I'm just not sure the unless there's
some leader that comes out and bridges that gap on
the left. And I think that gap is on the left,
(29:34):
which I think would be great, but I don't necessarily
see that happening, but that you know, that's how I've
sort of that's how I've sort of looked at this,
and it would be nice if there were a leader,
and I think it has to come from the left
that could get up in front of these folks in
a you know, remember the Clinton's Sister Soldient moment where
(29:56):
he called that those rap lyrics. Obviously this is much
more important, but says, look, this is this, this is abhorrent,
this is this is disgusting. This is not tolerated. Not
we can't tolerate it. You know, people who act in
such a way to condone and then to celebrate assassinations
in this country will be ostracized and will not be
(30:18):
welcome in this in this party. I think that's I
think that's the step that needs to take place. It's
almost like a reverse like, well, it's like a me
too thing right where they went back and looked at
all these people that had interactions with women that were
inappropriate or whatever over forty or fifty years. It's almost
like some sort of purge has to go on on
(30:40):
the left with folks that are you know, I don't
want to say irredeemable, because everyone's redeemable, but folks who
behaved in such a way to condone and in some
ways encourage political violence.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Well, but I agree with you, and I think.
Speaker 4 (31:00):
And obviously many many people hate Donald Trump, and that's fine.
Speaker 3 (31:04):
I mean, you're you're.
Speaker 4 (31:05):
Entitled to do that. I think much of that is,
you know, without foundation. I'm not saying that you can
dislike or even hate someone that you have to have
some great foundation for it.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
You can just have a visceral response and say, well,
you know, I don't like that person.
Speaker 4 (31:20):
But I think for many people who feel that way
about Trump, when you when you ask him, you're like, well,
good guy.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
I mean, what did the guy do that? You know
that that you you.
Speaker 4 (31:28):
Know, if he says hey, you just automatically say, be right,
whatever a is. I mean, if a was, hey, let's
stop killing baby seals, you would just say, I don't know,
maybe those baby seals should go, right because Donald Trump wants.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
To protect them. I mean, you you got to give
more thought than that.
Speaker 4 (31:46):
And to say, well, the guy says really mean, you know,
really obnoxious, really annoying things is both true and largely irrelevant, right,
I mean, it's just just all kinds of people say
all kinds of things, and most people don't.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
Freak out about it. Right.
Speaker 4 (32:03):
But Trump is again for better or for worse, And
you can stand on either side of this or in
the middle or.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
Somewhere in between. He represents, you know, the leadership he.
Speaker 4 (32:14):
Is, that that individual who if he says to his base,
this is the way we out approach this, you know
most of that base is.
Speaker 3 (32:23):
Going to listen.
Speaker 2 (32:23):
I don't think there is someone on the left. If
there is, I don't know who it.
Speaker 4 (32:27):
Is, right, I mean, there isn't a you know, and
it wasn't really a race between Trump and Kamala Harris.
I mean, despite all of the impetus against Trump, wasn't
even really close, right. I mean, Kamala Harris is not
that person. Joe Biden was not that person.
Speaker 5 (32:43):
Right.
Speaker 4 (32:43):
I've yet to see Gavin Newsom is not that person.
And I've yet to see someone stand up on the
left kind of like Kennedy did and rally the troops
and be in a position to give guidance, be in
a position to be the one who puts their it
down and says, you know, we can it's politics up
to here. Beyond here, it's lunacy and violence. Right, So
(33:06):
I agree with you. I don't know who that person is.
Speaker 3 (33:10):
And you know.
Speaker 4 (33:12):
We're violence begets violence, it always has that's the way
we are as human beings. And I realize I've said
it a dozen times now, but you've just opened the
door for a world in which someone can walk up
while you're espousing an ideology, whatever it may be, something,
just walk up and shoo jam and if everyone turns
(33:32):
them and goes, well, holy smokes, I mean you just
shut that guy. You go, yeah, I didn't like what
he was saying. And then someone says, well wait a minute.
They could personally just go no, no, no. I mean, that's
that's how we do it. Remember Charlie Kirk, you know,
remember Scullies, remember Giffert, remember all these people.
Speaker 2 (33:47):
You know, that's that's how we do it.
Speaker 4 (33:50):
And you cannot complain when the shoes on the other foot.
You simply have no grounds for complaint. And but you
just put a pin in. And this whole Second Amendment thing,
I've just I've had it with the debate around this.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
Okay, So let's start with the fact that the Second.
Speaker 4 (34:11):
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States gives citizens
the United States the right to bear arms. Now, you
can say that's bad, the Constitution shouldn't do that.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
That's fine.
Speaker 4 (34:22):
You can take that position. But in order to change it,
you would have to alter the Constitution. There is a
process for that, and it can be done. And if
in this country we ever get to the point where
we say, you know what, we want to remove that
statement from the Constitution, there is a methodology for doing that.
Speaker 2 (34:38):
The fact that we haven't done it.
Speaker 4 (34:40):
Means that there isn't the impetus in this country to
do it. Okay, So let's all agree that the Second
Amendment exists. It is in the Constitution, and it is
in there today, and it provides the right to bear arms.
It does not provide the right to willy nilly use them. Okay,
there's a different between those two things. I would agree.
(35:03):
I don't own a gun, but I am in a
very small percentage of people who happen to be exceptionally
well trained in their use. I have used a number
of them of different types in different situations, and I'm
freaking good at it, and it's a tool in my mind.
And the reason I don't own one now is because
I don't need that tool.
Speaker 2 (35:22):
Now.
Speaker 4 (35:23):
Okay, there are people who feel like they need that tool,
and perhaps they do.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
I don't, so I don't own one. Okay.
Speaker 4 (35:28):
So I'm someone who I'm telling you the Second Amendment exists.
I'm telling you it doesn't matter whether or not you
like it.
Speaker 2 (35:35):
It's in there. It allows the right to bear arms.
It does not allow the right to willy nilly use them.
Speaker 4 (35:40):
I would even take the position that I don't see
a good case for anyone needing fully automatic weapons, even
in a tactical environment when you're engaged in combat. Rare
is the need to flip your selector to auto it's
generally speaking ineffective, and there are only a couple of
times where it's the wise use of your limited ammunition
(36:05):
to just dump a mag in a general direction if
you're ambushed something of that nature. Maybe, but generally speaking,
you know, well trained operatives with weapons are not going.
Speaker 2 (36:16):
To use So I think I would even fall on
the side. I haven't really given a ton of thought
because it just doesn't, you know, impact me on a
daily basis.
Speaker 4 (36:23):
But I would say, fine, you know, we want to
get rid of a fully automatic weapons, get rid of
and I believe that's the law anyway, Okay, but I
am not going to have this conversation with anyone until
they show me the video of the gun floating down
the street all by itself with an angry look on
its face and aiming itself at somebody and then pulling
(36:48):
its own trigger.
Speaker 2 (36:49):
Until you can show me that video.
Speaker 4 (36:51):
I'm tired of people blaming this behavior on the existence
of firearms. That's stupid, that's childish, that's a childish approach.
The problem is the state of our cultural mental health
is what results in this violence. And if you want
(37:12):
an example, and don't tell me, oh, because the guns exist,
people decide to shoot somebody. That's ridiculous. You're on a
train in Charlotte. That twenty three year old Ukrainian gal
wasn't shot, she was stabbed.
Speaker 5 (37:28):
Ok.
Speaker 4 (37:29):
And if you took all the guns away, it wouldn't
remove the crazy, It wouldn't remove.
Speaker 2 (37:36):
The desire for violence.
Speaker 4 (37:39):
It wouldn't remove the decision that your ideological opponents deserve
physical punishment up to the point of death. And if
you didn't have a gun, you'd use something else, just
like the guy did on the train.
Speaker 2 (37:51):
So just stop it. If you want to have a
discussion about why shootings occur, I'm happy to have that
discussion with you, but that discussion will be around the
mental state.
Speaker 4 (38:00):
Of our culture, not around the existence of a tool
which with which you can inflict violence, because again, do
away with this tool, people are just going to pick
up that tool.
Speaker 3 (38:11):
That's right, I mean. And you know, the other thing
I noticed is that a lot of people also, you know,
brought up the Second Amendment in making fun of the assassination, saying, well,
you wanted guns to be you know, you want to
support the Second Amendment, so you get what you reap
what you sew or nonsense just total nonsense. But again,
(38:32):
and this is a broader discussion that we'll say for
another day. But there is a question, a generational question
about taking responsibility for one's actions that is just not
present in certain generations. Right They the more recent generations,
they can't, all due respect, they can't compete in the
marketplace of ideas, right, they can't combat words. They fear words,
(38:58):
especially words that prove their ideology to be lacking, severely lacking,
and so they combat that with violence, and then they
throw up any false flag they can to justify the violence.
So that's it, and that's look, that's that is what
it is. That is where we are. This is sort
of a somber episode, but I can I can promise
(39:18):
everyone this the next episode of the Printaman Chief podcast
will take more of a lighthearted tone as we attack
these issues. But I thought, you know, this is an
important discussion to have, in particular this week.
Speaker 2 (39:31):
I completely agree, and it's good to have it with you, buddy.
I mean, I'm glad we have this form. I don't
know that anyone else listens, but I don't care.
Speaker 4 (39:39):
I'm glad that you and I have this form to
have these discussions and kind of air these ideas out
and kind of, you know, hold each other accountable and
think there's things through and hopefully that's beneficial for anybody
who may be listening.
Speaker 2 (39:51):
And while next week's episode hopefully.
Speaker 4 (39:54):
Will not be anywhere near a somber we will continue
to do that. We will continue to beat around issues
and work our way through them, from the ridiculous to
the sublime, and we'll do it next week right here
on IP frequently.
Speaker 1 (40:08):
This has been IP frequently, once again clearing a forest
of lies with the machete of truth.
Speaker 2 (40:16):
You're welcome.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!