3D Debates #9 Teen Gun Violence, Parents Held Responsible

You win.

You meddle, dude.

Dudes,

deliberate. Dude.

The

dude.

9,

34, 321,

fight.

Are we live here?

Sorry. Live. I did dress as a school shooter for school shooter night tonight.

That would be on theme.

Have a little bit of fun as there's some presidential debates that we're not talking about.

Let's see here. Welcome to tonight's deliberating dog face dudes debate,

where we delve into critical issues impacting our schools and society,

child access prevention,

CAP laws, not like bust a cap, but CAP, child access prevention laws, and the troubling rise of bullying and school shootings.

Child access prevention laws are designed to keep firearms out of the hands of children by requiring safe storage

and imposing penalties on adults who fail to secure their weapons.

But as tragic headlines about school shootings continue to unfold, we're forced to ask, are these laws enough? Do we need more laws, dude?

How do they intersect with the deeper social issues of bullying, which in many cases fuels these violent outbursts? It's a question mark at the end of that sentence.

Maybe we'll explore how the combination of gun safety laws, mental health support, and anti bullying initiatives can prevent future tragedies.

We could also discuss what it takes for our society to heal after these devastating events, looking at stories of communities that have come together after experiencing the unimaginable.

Whether you're a parent, educator, or a concerned citizen, this conversation

is critical.

We have 2 sides tonight

in favor of and against

parents being held responsible

for violent massacres.

Who will begin tonight?

Well, first off, we wanna

introduce

Oh, well, damn it. I wouldn't have got the sunglasses.

So I figured Everybody you were already wearing glasses. I'm like, gosh. Everybody's wearing glasses but me. Like, I actually

The the the important thing is the trench coat

and the weapon inside of it. I do have a trench coat. I've got a full on duster. I mean,

like, the oil coats are great.

Like, you if you if you live out in Northern California

in the winter, it doesn't snow here, but it rains nonstop.

And that plastic rain gear lasts, like, one chore.

I I do chores for one day. That thing has a hole in it. By the end of the week,

that thing is I I might as well not even

be wearing it. It's it's it's useless.

And the only thing that really works good is those oil skin dusters.

Those things are awesome. You just hit them with some mink oil.

Done. Let me water off it. Your friend Steve tonight with some mink oil and Steve. Yeah. Do you remember your first shooting?

Yeah. Yeah. I do. I mean, the well, obviously, I think we all did. It was Columbine.

Right?

Yeah. It was a big one. 1990. Tonight, we introduce

my good friend, Steve, Steve,

and

he's gonna join us on the show as a permanent addition. And so it's gonna be 4 dog face dudes, which is just absolutely awesome.

It balances things out.

There's

a bunch of things.

Steve,

for anybody that doesn't know him,

back when I first started, he started,

Slow News Days,

and,

him and I came up and started out together. We're personal friends. He's actually lived in my house.

I've we've broken bread a hundred times.

Awesome guy. And as politically knowledgeable as they come, we don't hold all the same positions. It's which is great for this.

So it'll keep things mixed up. Tonight, we're actually on the same side.

I I feel like probably because we have both fully raised children to adults and realize what

crazy shits teenagers are and how they could care less about whether you about what you say.

So

Yeah. Hey. I just, I wanna thank all 3 of you gentlemen for inviting me aboard. I'm very happy to be here, and I look forward to some

very lively and spirited

conversations and and debates as we build this channel up.

Welcome, Steve. Good to have you. Steve, let's make it fun tonight.

Alright. So I guess since we are, the pro side,

Alan and I can go first.

I'm still gonna run this timer.

So 5 minutes.

Alan, I'll go first.

Go ahead.

Alright. So

my thoughts on this

is that

I think it would benefit

society for parents to be held accountable

in these type of situations,

not just

the type of shootings we hear about now and the the,

the the mass shootings of young angsty

white kids,

but even within the inner city that

if the parents knew that they were gonna be held accountable,

they're they might be less likely to have kids.

It would reinforce

the the value

of the responsibility

of being a parent.

It might

influence the child

to to know that not only is he gonna go out in a blaze of glory, he's also going to affect his entire family. And,

I I don't really see this

as a second amendment issue.

I see it more as a parenting issue and that someone needs to take accountability

for

these children's actions.

And

so that's why I'm going to argue tonight in support of

punishing parents

as well as

the perpetrator,

in these events.

And,

that is the end of my intro. I'm John Rowland.

You can find me in Natural Freedom League. You can find me at the NUS, and you can find me at deliberating dogface dudes.

I'm arguing with John tonight. I'm Alan Marcus. Find me at alanmarcus.com.

Doing the research and finding out that we already have

a justice system. We have laws in the books already,

and they seem to be

useful

in terms of the negligent entrustment idea.

Negligent entrustment is a legal concept that occurs when one party, the entruster, and tonight for the debate, that would be the parent, the parent of the other party

being the child, the student at the school

with the dangerous instrumentality.

So any sort of weapons,

they can be knives and bladed weapons, baseball bats, other sports equipment, chemical weapons or explosives,

machetes or other cutting tools, tasers, sun guns, anything you'd find in the anarchy cookbook.

This also could include prescription medications,

illegal drugs and alcohol,

motor vehicles, and other things that could be used

to commit

crime,

acts of violence, these types of things.

And because of this law already being on the book,

it can be charged

to the adult

of the child

for this

negligent entrustment,

concept.

So the entruster can be held liable for any resulting damages if it can be shown that they acknowledge it negligently in allowing an entrustee

access to the instrumentality,

meaning the weapon. So with some of these protection laws

and the fact that

weapons are used

and bullets are fired and people's lives are ended,

then there is an adult

who

has access

to the weapon

and did not lock them up, did not secure them, had children

who were able to access these weapons. So in that way, a negligent parent,

when proven guilty,

should be held responsible

for the actions of their children. That is my opening argument.

Well, Ben's eating, so I guess I'll I'll go ahead and go first. So I

I am

pretty appalled at the idea

that parents are being and have been charged with this. I think it sets a very, very dangerous precedent.

I'm,

struck by

the

the reality

that

at least so far, this only applies to parents for school shooters,

and is gone in coming coming up in court cases in tandem with charging gun manufacturers

alongside,

of people who commit violent crimes with a gun. I think this is a a gross intrusion

of the state. I think it represents an increase

of the nanny state

And, and I think that it's largely,

put forth into the public

because

school shootings,

and we can get into what those

may actually be further on into the debate, but have been, shoved down the throats, of Americans mainly as a measure

to restrict and redefine gun ownership in the country. They don't charge parents

if their kid gets behind the wheel of a car at 16 or 17 and gets into an accident and kills somebody. You know, charge parents, somebody snaps a neck in a wrestling tournament, something like that.

It's only with guns because we're the last country on the face of God's green earth, at least in the, you know, developed world

where gun ownership is a thing

that,

is it it

serves as a sort of, you know, final line of defense

against an ever increasing tyrannical state. And with that, I will yield my time over to Ben.

So

Steve made some awesome points.

Loved it.

Loved that,

Marcus put on the eyeliner for Steve. That was that was great. I just noticed that.

Hopefully, he has that side pick then ready.

So as Steve said, this is 100%

just attack on 2 a. And

that

the very, very first

school shooting that pretty much anybody can remember or or name or think of was Columbine.

And when we look at that case,

that magically

happened in the same week that they were having a vote on on

assault rifles.

Like, that's a thing.

Like, what is that exactly?

So the,

they don't know.

I know.

But

they put out the bans on semiautomatic

militaristic looking guns,

in that same week because, obviously,

the very first of these incidences

created a giant emotional charge.

When we get down to the root

of where this goes,

this nanny state that Steve talked about

has

handicapped

every parent

in every way.

So

I can understand

what the pro side is saying, where you should have some accountability for your children.

That would be if I was allowed

to take to discipline my children in any kind of a proper way. I don't imagine the kid that's willing to go out and do something like this

was going to get the message because you sent him to his room for an hour or or whatever the weird things are that they consider

punishments today

and don't have CPS

screaming down your throat so they can take away your kids so they can get abused by somebody else and molested.

The fact is is

even if I was allowed

to discipline children today in the way that I would think that they need to be,

by the time a child

is a teenager,

I understand that we in today's society

wanna put people through this Peter Pan syndrome,

where they're not even a real human until they're 21.

And the fact is is

when you look historically,

most

you the 15 year old to go out and own a home, to go have a wife, to have every capability of a man, to throw a revolution

and write a constitution.

Like, things like, go back and look at the age of our founding fathers and the capabilities

of these of these young men outside of Franklin,

who is, like, ancient at the time. But you go back, you go to any farm area.

And in that area,

those kids are extraordinarily

capable.

Weirdly, these school shootings all happen in major cities.

Farm areas like where I grew up,

every

truck in the parking lot of the school that I went to school in had a gun rack with 2 or 3 guns in the back.

Not one school shooting. We got into fist fights.

We got angry. We screamed at teachers.

Those guns stayed in the racks in the back of our trucks.

Like, it's that simple. But the fact is is kids do

all kinds of crazy things. They're very capable of

making a decision.

I don't know how many of you were teenagers and your parents were like, don't do this. And you're like, okay.

I won't.

I don't understand how you think for one second you could take and charge a human being for what another human being does

in any kind of an age where they have any kind of autonomy.

And in today's world, we're trying to make laws where they can go get a sex change

at a young age. They can go get,

birth control behind the parents' back. They can do a 100 things behind the parents' back. But to then turn around and hold the parents accountable for their actions,

absolute insanity.

So

I definitely agree that there's other

issues

involved in terms of what's actually going on here in these school shootings. But if we take the mainstream narrative,

for example, of the the original,

sort of the original Columbine,

You know, it was kind of shown that these parents were just, you know, letting their kids go in the room. I mean, I don't know if the dad was an alcoholic. I know he was ex military,

which is a whole another

topic.

But, you know, these kids were in their room, you know,

planning shit,

showing signs

of,

of, you know, potentially

causing harm to others,

And we're allowed to play with weapons and not in a appropriate way. Like, when Ben talks about the guys with the gun racks, these are guys that are learning

how to properly use weapons,

where, you know, seems like these Columbine parents, you know, we're we're kinda just like, yeah. You know, here here's a toy. You know? Go play with it, whatever.

Not really showing them the type of attention that a parent should

show to a child. And in most of these cases, it seems like that take,

Adam Lanza, supposedly was just, you know, in his room, you know, no and again, I agree with you on the medication side of it. I mean, that's a whole another topic,

but these parents instead of actually

actually raising their kids and teaching them right and wrong and teaching them to think about their actions and how they affect others, they're just medicating them and telling them here a pillow can fix it. That also I think is negligible

against the parents. But again, I I understand that we're in a society that,

enforces that and believes that, you know, is pushing that idea on people.

But

I think if if we the nanny state is already here.

If we have it, we may as well have it

to

support values

like you're responsible for your children until they are

I don't know what age. I mean, maybe it shouldn't be 18.

Maybe it should be younger than that.

But

I do think that if we are gonna have this system

with laws in place, parents should know. They're gonna be held accountable if their kid goes and does something like this. And, again, this goes I think this would go also within the inner city, which is a different type of shooting. It's more

survival based. It's not all about just kill everybody and kill myself.

It's about,

you know, they're learning how to survive. But those kids also, if you look in their homes, they're being neglected as well.

And, you know, they don't have a good family structure around them. So,

I'm kind of reiterating my main point, kinda covering a few of the things that you guys said.

But, yeah, I do think

in the system we're in, to establish some laws like that would possibly

prevent

some of these events from happening.

Do we want a rebuttal now?

Yeah. So so, John, I I I understand

what you're saying, and I do, you know,

will will say up front

that all of these shootings are absolute tragedies, and all of them were likely preventable.

And in most cases,

it's down

to other mitigating

factors,

rather than availability

of firearms.

I think availability of firearms is the the lowest rung

of that particular ladder. There are 26 states in the US that have child access prevention laws.

So that already exists.

The what what you're advocating for

is already in effect in 26 states currently.

It has done very little

in terms of or at least according to multiple studies, which I'll get into with when we get further into the conversation,

done very little overall

unless you use incredibly skewed methodology

to,

reduce

or or limit mass shootings.

This is a a cultural phenomena

that has existed really for about 25 years as as Ben noted,

right as some

very, very

rights limiting legislation was on the table.

The the simple fact of the matter is if a kid wants to go and do

some gnarly stuff,

the kid's gonna go do some gnarly stuff. We have an arbitrary

application as you noted when you were talking about inner city versus

whatever the the mass shootings are. It's an arbitrary application of a law

that doesn't exist on a federal level for a reason because you could never get congress

to pass a federal law

for child access prevention.

You can only get it in states where they typically have

very blue governors

and a very blue legislator. There are some outliers, and I'll concede that up front. The the the Texas

and Florida both have child access prevention laws.

And, historically, those are more red leaning states, although, Ron DeSantis

signed red flag laws into existence,

and a handful of other things that I you know, but on its face, I don't agree with. But he's a Republican governor, and so it it would be definitely unfair to say that this is solely within the wheelhouse of the Democrats.

But

the laws already exist for it. Their laws already exist against murder.

Laws already exist against carrying firearms into a no gun zone. These don't prevent criminals from committing crimes.

And with that, I would, defer to Ben to see if he has, anything else to add.

Nope. Better let Marcus,

rebut, and then I'll rebut the butt.

Sure. So laws do not prevent criminals

from criminal behavior.

I I understand that there are certain thugs. There are adults. We know them as criminals. We see them. They're they have criminal behavior. They have a history of criminal behavior. And here we're talking about

young

adolescents

who

don't have a huge world view. They haven't traveled around the globe. They haven't experienced much of life. Their entire experience

is

mostly

at school and in a digital world with, cyberbullying

and the ability

to just absolutely torment

people

online.

We're not talking online bills tonight. We're talking about real world

tragedies.

Expanding the argument that children

that commit

crimes

and are found guilty of committing those crimes, specifically

gun violent crimes resulting in deaths.

That the parents

of those children

of those tragedies

shall be held responsible

is natural

to say that

because the parent

being the caregiver,

the guardian, the sole guardian

of the child.

And a side note here.

And we have the law legal laws that say, you know, your child into area 18.

It could be extended to 21 where you can buy alcohol. Other rights are given. We also extend

health care insurance to, like, age 26.

So this might include

realizing that not every

teenager

grows into an adult at the same rate. So when we're talking about young, troubled, adolescent

children

under

the guardianship of their legal parents, biological

or stepfather,

stepmother, whoever is legally

responsible for raising the child until they turn 18, maybe that should be up to 21. We're not debating the age limit. We're saying the books

have laws in place. And because of that,

the parent and the guardian

is legally held responsible

for their own child.

Because of that fact,

due to

due to that fear and concern that the parent has lost control of the child,

the parent may not go to social services. They might not go to a a trusted faith community leader. They might not go to

counselors. They might not talk about the fact

that they've lost control of their parent for fear of them having their home inspected. They might be criminal parents themselves. They might be doing illegal as a drugs. They might be into other illegal activities so they could be found out.

Let me just say this that crime is terrible.

I'm not advocating for more crime. I'm saying as a response to

the worst possible crime that could be committed, taking someone's life at a very early age.

And after that event happens,

the community wants to hold people

responsible.

To hold the guardians responsible

seems to be the most responsible thing for society.

Completing my argument here that

a parent might not report that their child is out of their

control, is not listening to them, is violent,

has tendencies towards

violence and self destructiveness,

and

might have access to dangerous weapons.

The adult that does not report

that behavior

when they know for sure that they have a legitimate

concern that the child

is about to do something worse than they've ever done before, including

breaking laws, causing violent

acts that cannot be undone

because the parent waited to report

the suspicious

behavior of the child,

then because they took that gamble, they're gonna lose that bet, and they're going to have to be held responsible

for an even greater

crime that they lost control of.

Your response.

So between both of you,

there's

some suppositions that you've both made

and pushed out.

With John,

don't you think we had bad parents?

I grew up before

these child

laws

for abusing children.

I grew up in the Arab long before that in a very rural,

very

conservative state.

I literally know people that got beat with a bullwhip,

and everybody knew it.

It was just a normal thing. I can still remember the kid's name and you just you you he couldn't do anything for a couple days at school because of sports, because his dad took a bull whip to him.

That's he must have done something.

Right?

So this is

I grew up in that era that made these laws happen.

And

coincidentally,

again,

and even in an area where

we had drunks,

like I grew up in an era where kids were allowed to go to the grocery store

and buy liquor

and take it home to their parents.

Like, they had access to liquor like no kid can now. All the child liquor laws

are gone or have been since then.

Like,

so many of these laws, we were just expected to control our damn selves.

And then if you were a kid that didn't,

they came

and rather than

go and put you through a 100 social programs,

which don't make kids better.

Instead of putting kids,

I in,

the state overwatch

situations and then charging the parents and making it so the parents are now extraordinarily

strapped for money,

and they have an out of control kid who just gets worse under state supervision.

The whole thing is absolutely insane.

Don't you think we had kids that did crazy things?

Again, we didn't even have the laws that we have now. I've been driving a car

on highway since I was 12.

The

we had I didn't just have a car. I had a car with guns. Like, I was a rolling death machine.

And somehow and so was all every friend of mine.

And somehow

nobody got mass shot.

And

the times haven't changed

for where parents are now like, hey, little kids,

you should start doing bad things.

The

we had kids that,

were violent.

I remember 1 kid blew up,

he made some little bomb contraption, blew it up in the in the high school parking lot. Oh, man. They were mad at that guy.

Oh,

but did they go after his dad? No. They went after him. He got in trouble. I'm sure he got put on on some kind of watch list of some kind.

That was his own choice. Did his dad tell him to go put a bomb in a high school parking lot? No. Did his dad probably have the the

materials around to make it? Probably.

I I find it

extraordinarily

offensive the

oh, they had lock had it locked up and had access to it.

Again,

at the end of the day, we had the gun sitting in the in the back of the wind in the back of the rack in the truck. We had guns propped up in corners.

I'm not sure where where this idea that you should have your gun locked up in a special safe and oh my god. There's an intruder.

Hold on.

Time out.

I need to go open up the safe, and I also have the ammunition in another safe on the other side of the house. What the hell do you even have the gun for? What the hell's the point? Holy shit. You better become Hong Kong Phooey or something. That's just absolute insanity.

So the the idea that that that somehow makes the parents culpable,

like, nowhere in the law does it say you have to have your guns locked up. That's become some kind of a weird

prop propagated thing from the media. So to try and

put that angle on the parents or, oh, he bought his child a gun.

Again,

everybody's been buying their kids guns

their whole life. This is just an attack on the second amendment.

The idea of charging

a parent for something a teenager does

when we all, every one of us, went out and had partied, had sex. I don't know. You're all a bunch of eunuchs today, so maybe you didn't have sex. I was having enough sex for you, you fucking yutzes.

Drinking alcohol,

shooting guns, blah blah blah. Managed not to go in and mass shoot up schools or anywhere else for that matter. Managed to make it through life and get to here. Did a lot of dumb shit like drag behind trucks when it's icy out and see who can hang on the longest while your friends' ripping the truck along and all kinds of asinine things.

Never tried to go kill a bunch of other humans. That's

that's on the system and things going on today.

I will concede Marcus's

point of the

kids today suffer social media

where God back in the day, at least when you were getting bullied, you could run home after school and the bullying was done. Things that the kids today have to go through.

I will give them that, but I don't see how that could possibly be put on the parents. Okay. So I wanna

comment about again, I don't think this is a second amendment issue. I mean, it is,

but what I'm arguing is not about gun access laws. It's about

if if you're allowing your kid to learn how to use weapons, that you do it in a responsible

way, and that you take accountability

if your child is,

you know, you know, for some reason depressed

or,

being bullied and you're not helping your child to

resolve these issues

in a productive way,

then

the the threat of being investigated. Now

granted, I'm sure all of these parents are investigated on some level,

but I think to,

intensify

the,

the idea that they are going to be held accountable for this

is important. And in the system we have, I would probably argue if we get a little bit more into the conspiracy behind all of this is that the government doesn't wanna blame the parents. They they don't wanna they don't wanna get to the root of the problem. So

if we started by saying, hey. If your child,

you know, up to this age, you know, still considered legally,

not an adult,

if they

commit one of these offenses,

then you as well are going to be looked at

and investigated

and potentially charged with

involuntary manslaughter

for neglecting your child

for

and, again, this is systemic, I agree,

for putting your kid on pills

to solve all their problems.

Because I will say, Ben, I mean, yeah, we come from an era where

it was more rowdy and we were out there doing shit and getting away with shit. But it

we had a sense of,

of right and wrong and and

ethics and, you know, how you how you interact with individuals. And we weren't, you know, so depressed and locked in our room and, you know, hating everybody and, you know,

being fed pills to solve our issues. So, again, those are all factors that go into this, but I I just wanna reiterate that I'm saying

the threat of the parent being charged,

the increase

of the idea that the the parent is accountable for the actions of their child

would be a benefit at this point

because then maybe those parents would stop

finding the easy solution to the problem.

And listening to the kindergarten teacher who tells you that your 5 year old is ADHD

because he can't sit in a chair for 45 minutes

and you continue to go along with that system,

well, then you should be held accountable.

So

I'll stop there. Okay. Let's go ahead and, jump into the shorter points

and the back and forth on this. I think that's gonna be a lot more interesting and fun. I don't think anybody's I think we're all kind

of worn on this

part particular format.

Again,

we're in an era

where

they're telling kids that they have more rights

rights

where they can make medical decisions,

and they can do everything else.

Somehow,

in this one area,

parents are accountable.

Like,

kids kids aren't

growing ass

enough to, you know,

they can be 10 and change start lot start going through sexual transition.

But

with if they decide to go crazy,

like, because a kid that it doesn't have dysmorphia isn't already crazy.

Funny how a lot of these school shooters

somehow also

are already in psychiatry,

going through dysmorphia,

going through things like that.

But this one little act, like Steve said,

is the only thing

we'll hold parents accountable for.

The rest of it, hell, let them kids run wild. That's what the state wants them to do. Sure. But now let's hold the parents. How how can you say that this is on the parents? Let's let's be clear here. We're arguing

in

favor of the guardian,

the legal guardian. The legal guardian may not be the biological parent. So we're not talking about kids with daddy issues or mommy issues who are not seeing their biological parent. We're talking

that the legal

guardian

of the child

who agrees

to be the guardian of their child and then sends them to a public

school

shall be held responsible

for the actions

of their children.

This incentivizes

the parents to get ahead of the curb

before

further violent acts occur.

And when there is a bully situation,

the parent,

meaning the legal guardian of that bully,

should be made aware

of the actions of their child. Their child is bullying this other student. Have the parents been notified? Has this been

included in the proper paper trail? There has to be a paper trail to show that the parents did what they could to deescalate,

to

peer moderate,

to force the children

to get along with each other and work out their differences.

The reason

and I don't know the reason, so I'm not gonna argue the reason why bullets leave

guns

flying through the air and hit meat shields.

I I don't know why that happens.

It's a difficult climate.

There is new technology. There are arguments that that have even stated

due to

the pandemic, the coronavirus thing, and the,

stay at home orders. We have students who are impaired.

They are not

behaving

in the way that their age group

in other countries

or in other times

have behaved.

Again,

that is the responsibility

of the guardian

to raise the child.

They send their child to the school to learn mathematics and go to the gym and work out and learn sex education.

That's all in addition to the responsibility

of the legal

guardian

of all students, including

bullying and bullies. Can I ask you a question, Marcus?

Go ahead. If a kid cheats on his test, should the parent be charged with fraud?

Does the cheating on the test

cause

harm? I did. It's just a a yes or it's just a yes or no question. If a kid cheats on a test,

should that parent be charged with fraud?

Because effectively,

cheating on the test is with frauding.

The parent should be made aware No. No. That's not the question, Mark. The question is, should the parent be charged with fraud?

Fraud is a different category.

Vince, how is how is that how is that not defrauding every other child in that classroom

by how is that harming

every other child in that classroom

by cheating on the test? Where there's a curve, a grade curve.

Now you are definitely harming because that kid might have gotten a You're altering the thing now. Everybody else's grade by cheating on that test. Should the parent be charged with fraud? Yes or no?

The parent

did not commit the fraud.

The child The parent did not commit the shooting either.

The parent didn't go into the school, keeping the door, and get a bunch of kids. If the weapon is legally

or not not registered.

Alright? We're talking about weapons here.

So is this a a licensing issue, a deterrent issue, or a

a state

ultimately

having the decision

above the parent of the child issue?

The argument that's the crux of the argument. Because the parent

did not perform the job that the state has to take over for them, then that's what happens because of the event, the violent event. The violent event was not prevented.

It happened. Now we're talking about the outcome of the event and who is held responsible, who is held liable. The parent makes a tacit contract

with the the state and the school system.

Yes. I am responsible for my child

at my house. When my child goes into your environment,

you de facto become responsible

for my child. Otherwise, I would not cede my authority to you in the first place. There have been a number of occasions where parents have butted heads against various school districts over

differing

levels

of

state insertion

and control

over what what happens to the kid.

And,

it, the argument that John's been making the whole time in the world that we live in right now, more often than not,

the,

the deference is to the state and the school, not the parent.

Ultimately,

while the child is at school,

the school, the administration,

and by de facto, the state

has the the ultimate

responsibility

of that child. You listen to teachers

talk in school board meetings and it, all of the different city council meetings. What did they say? They say these are our kids.

We have more to do.

We are with them more than their parents. They're our children.

But now we're going to turn on our heel and say, no. Let's go ahead and lock up mom and dad for 15 years. Does that work with Runaways

who then later emancipate

at How many runaways are school shooters, man? That's the that's the most outlier nonsense

that I've heard this evening. Didn't equate Runaways with school shooting. I suggested that to your argument with the state being the ultimate

caregiver, the ultimate, you know, guardianship of everyone. So

if that's if that's what is actually in place,

then that seems to be what the laws are on the books for. And we can't argue to change the laws.

We can argue that the laws Well, this law for charging

parents is a very new law. This is 2021,

I believe,

was the first case of charging a parent. Not 1989.

But there was a big gap.

There was a big gap in between. Okay. Because

every single judge that a case came before where they were like, we wanna charge the parents for this. They're like, get out of here, you bum. That's crazy.

I would say that, if the kid commit commits,

cheats on a test, no. The parents shouldn't be held accountable for fraud.

It's apples and oranges.

We're talking about murder. We're talking

about premonitored

murder.

We're we're talking about consistency

of logic is what we're talking about. Kid's given a car for his birthday, and he uses the car to run somebody over. Should the parent be charged for murder?

Yes. So they should be investigating. Arguing

here. Exactly. That's the the negligence law. The entruster

of the parent

entrusted the child with the car. If the car uses that

and run someone over,

the parent is held responsible. Also, the insurance.

What's the price of the insurance?

They're not gonna insure the vehicle anymore, so then the person won't be ineligible.

We're not arguing

that laws

in place prevent

crime.

We're stating that the laws in place

shall continue

because they are in place. They shall be equally enforced

that the situation

is it is tragic. It tugs at the heartstrings,

and it's not

it's not fun to look at the argument and then and see that there's already legislation

in place

for a lot of this.

That's that's a difficult

harsh truth. Again,

you you in one in one little thing, just if they kill somebody,

then the parent gets the accountability.

But in no way Sure. So what's actually happening then? Given the authority to

to nerf those kids' behavior.

I'm talking about real world situations

that have happened.

And what has happened is

parents have been held responsible,

liable for their children

under different conditions. It could be emotional distress. It could be, you know, ending the life too soon, these types of things. And what happens is those cases get settled outside of court.

So it does become a financial thing that's on the table. It's a civil thing. That's always been there, and nobody's arguing that that shouldn't be there. We're putting on the table civil cases.

To to criminally hold the parents liable,

for a kid's actions, especially somebody that old. I joined the army when I was 17.

The fucking state gave me a gun and told me to go kill people. Like, somehow, I managed not to mass shoot up anything.

So the the laws that are in place, sometimes it ends up that

a teen shooter under the guardianship of a parent

kills other students and teachers

at a facility.

What happens is the parents of that shooter

are then

sued.

They're they're brought to trial, but then they're settled outside of the court privately. And that's the information that isn't made publicly because it is a private settlement. Okay. There's civil. Happens. Correct.

So that does prove

that they are held

by this isn't it ruled by law. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Let's let's examine

that does prove

because they've actually done a number of studies on this.

And with very skewed methodology,

of course,

it does prove

that mass shootings go down,

the rates of children

themselves goes down.

But when you broaden it out

and you look at,

you look at less

skewed methodology, there

is

zero

significant

difference

between the states that have the CAP laws and the states that don't have the CAP laws.

It

and I think we could all agree

that it does come down to individual

households,

individual parenting,

but, again, that is not something

that the state

has any authority

whatsoever

to determine in any individual's

life. We're your your position

effectively

is that the state is the ultimate parent, and the state has more authority

in your home

than you do as the parent. I'm not trying to sit here and pretend like there aren't bad parents or kids that grow up and really screwed up households. But if we're gonna talk about that, then we really do need to explore

the reality

that in Discord servers

and chat rooms absolutely

everywhere,

there lurks the FBI

looking for potential people to activate. This has been borne out through reporting

through mainstream outlets like the Los Angeles Times who produced a series of investigations.

About Discord? Do parents know Of course they do. It's 2024.

So then it's the parent's responsibility to say, I'm paying the phone bill. I'm providing Internet for my children at home. I need to know what applications they're on. I need to know what their records are. I need to know I don't have kids for that. So let me tell you how having kids work. Work. I understand parenting is difficult. It's a lot of work. It's not about difficulty. It's about the fact that there are only 24 hours in the day.

The that's that's what we're all limited to. We get 24 hours a day.

Now if you're a parent, you're probably working.

There goes at least 8 to 12 hours,

and in modern times right now,

probably 13 to 14 hours depending on your commute of your day.

You now have 10 hours. You've already made a tacit agreement with the state and the school that your child is their responsibility

for 6 of those hours.

Yes. We can we can agree on that.

We can agree on that. I'll say that. Yep. So how many hours how many hours do we hang on? Hang on. Just let me finish my point, please. How many hours do we have after 13 to 14 are gone

in a day?

I'm not a math magician.

So 24 minus 13,

that's 11 hours? 11 hours maximum.

How many hours of sleep do you think the average parent gets

after they busted their ass for 8 to 12 hours a day?

Like, if they're lucky. If they're lucky. Let's give them 6. Let's give them 6. So we were at 11.

We've now we're we've subtracted 6. We're at 5.

Our

if

you are the most

dedicated parent on the planet,

you're spending 4 of those hours with that kid.

Four precious hours. Are you you're not a tired parent. No. No. Hang on. No. I'm just I'm just trying to give you I'm just trying to give I'm trying to paint a picture, my friend.

Okay. Just giving you an overall view of a Monday through Friday day to day parents life.

You are lucky

unless you're

homeschooling

or you're fortunate enough to run your business out of the place where you work to spend more than 4 hours a day with your child

through their educational years.

The amount of influence

that your child is subjected to

for the remaining

20 hours, Even if your kids sleep 7 hours a night, which really when they're growing up, they don't. Unless it's on the weekend and they might give you 10, and that's blissful,

brother. Oh my goodness. It's

blissful.

But if you're lucky,

you you get to spend 4 hours with your kid. The state has already spent 2 more hours with your kid than you.

The culture that we live in, the Internet has already spent

more than 4 hours with your child.

I would say what you're saying though is actually kind of supporting what we're saying, and it's why I said the government would never actually

enforce something like this or expand on criminal charges against the parents because they do think that they are the nanny and they do want to be the nanny.

So what what we're saying is

putting the responsibility

back on the parents.

It's your job to pull your kids out of these schools. It's your job to get your kid off the Internet. It's your job to stop letting your kid watch brain rot on YouTube, which I do sometimes, unfortunately. Replace the word job with responsibility,

legal responsibility,

John.

Exactly. Well and I I I understand that, and that's a, you know, the that's a a decent counterargument.

I'm glad to get one.

So here here's the here's the reality.

The majority

and Ben brought this up preshow.

Majority of the people arguing to punish the parents

either aren't parents or have very young children. The the people who would be in the negative to this

are people who have raised

children.

And

the

the notion,

again,

that you are

criminally

responsible

for your child's behavior

is

limited to this one singular issue.

You can go to civil court

and you can sue,

and that has been a thing for, I'm gonna say 30 years maybe,

is when it became really popularized.

I don't know. Mid mid late nineties, something like that. They started suing parents because their kids did dumb shit, and somebody figured out, oh, maybe I could make a buck off of this.

So now we're talking about lawfare for the sake of lawfare.

We're talking about

graft

for the sake of graft,

and that's something

that is not only

selfish to the point of

mockery,

but it's been institutionalized

by the state as a mechanism for funding.

Yeah. That's

that's a lot of issues with society

and

other

criminal investigation

elements. You know, there's reports of FBI.

The,

scope of conspiracy

and what really happened behind the scenes is out of the scope of the argument. The argument tonight is that

when a student

leaves the home in the morning and brings with him

a weapon in a backpack

with the intention of using that to defend himself against a bully,

but then ends up taking another person's life. This is what we're arguing

that the parent

is helping presumption

that the parent was holding.

Common phenomenon,

school shooters? I'm sorry. Right. Thank you for saying that. So that's my next point is that the percent of school shooters

is fortunately very, very low. We hear about every instance of it, but it's like a very, very, very low percentage.

So the amount of parents that will be held responsible for the shooting is very, very, very, very low already. So we're not saying every parent who has a child who cheats on a test

should get a slap on the wrist from the principal at the school or, you know, the Catholic nun at the nunnery should slap them across the butt because they're a bad daddy. No. We're talking about a small percentage

of people who bring weapons to school. The weapon causes

the unaliving

of other staff

and teachers. We have teachers who are afraid to teach children. We have

students who are afraid to go to school.

We need to hold

parents of children, of bullies,

of cheaters,

of all behavior

from

the the the children, the guardians need to be held responsible.

Specifically in this argument tonight, it's a disgusting situation. It's not fun to have to argue

this at all.

The point we are arguing is that the parents

of convicted

school shooters

who use weapons

to cause

harm

to other students and staff at schools.

The parents

should and are held responsible

for their actions.

That's the way that it works in America with the laws. We have civil suits that are settled out of court,

and that should continue.

That's how things are

working.

So that's we're arguing in favor of keeping

the system that is in place in place. Is there a different argument here that I'm not understanding?

That system isn't in place in most places. It's not a federal,

law. It's a state thing. It only happens on occasion,

and they're trying to expand it. I don't understand how John could I understand he doesn't wanna make it in the debate,

as part of 2 a, but there that's the only

possible reasonable,

defense on that entire thing.

And

again,

the main point being

if you had been a parent

and as you're and as John's gonna find out when he becomes a teen,

you get in trouble for being over for being over in your child's business. Your child has privacy.

They have rights.

They can choose all kinds of things that they get to do.

So

going and taking a tool because that's all,

this is is a tool.

A tool can be used in good manners or it can be used in bad manners.

Real easy.

This is just a tool. So to blame a parent

because a child misused a tool, well, you took away the the parents tools

to discipline

or deal with these children.

And then

as I'm trying to look this up,

I see that they have said they're trying to pretend

like

mental illness

is playing less of a factor in these mass shooters, which is hilarious because obviously if you're a mass shooter, you are mentally ill.

But

the reason that is is because they've quit

making things like body dysmorphia,

a mental illness.

Anything that's in this

very popular group of people who hold the same position

that

that not you I'm not saying you 2 do,

but

the people politically

hold the same position

that children

should have autonomy

in every other possible way.

Coincidentally,

even it's weird that they're all

2

a, all entirely

about abolishing the 2 a. But somehow, weirdly, they're the only ones that even though every other aspect of your child's life,

they should be autonomous.

In this,

apparently,

they're not.

And you should be held criminally liable

and get to go to prison for 10 to 15 years.

All this is is an attack on 2 a, try to keep

weapons out of people's homes, out of people's hands. It's trying to take this entire generation

of young people.

And,

like, when we raised the car age,

that didn't make things better.

It just made it so 18 year olds, all of a sudden, were running around and can't don't know how to drive when we raised the drinking age. That didn't make the world better. It just made it so now kids are 21, and they're going out and getting blitzkrieg drunk at college

instead of

already having some kind of sense about them. Like, I've been drinking since I was 12. I don't drink at all now. I quit drinking by the time I was 22,

but I was allowed to when I was 12.

And I got drunk and got sick a number of times,

taught me some lessons.

These kids that go out and almost like an Amish

where they're just allowed they're they're

only allowed to do things. Shoot a few birds. They shoot a few squirrels. They shoot few shoot a few pet bunny rabbits, and they get all their shooting skills out of them at a young age.

Gun safety is great.

They start learning

how to have respect for the gun and how to control it. And then also That's an excellent point. I was gonna bring that up. The entire nerfing of just violence among young boys, again,

by the state, where they're not allowed to do things like have fist fights and lose, and then not go psycho and go shoot somebody.

Those are probably causal factors. Aren't allowed.

You can't take away the tools to deal with the problem and then say, oh, I can't believe that you didn't fix this.

She'll be getting her response, but I'm gonna reiterate. It's not about taking the tool.

It's not about taking the tool. They already took the tool. Now it's about not arguing the parents.

The whole issue

is

a a second amendment issue. I agree with you. But

charging the parents would actually be going towards more the root of the problem.

And so, again, this is why the government will probably never do it on a federal level.

I'm gonna give an example of a case. 1996,

Richmond, California.

A 6 year old child

with 2 8 year old boys goes into an apartment,

beats up an infant to death. Right? I'm looking at this article.

They talk about the victim's parents. They don't once mention

the the the perpetrator's parents,

of this child. I don't care if it's a gun.

That parent's child should not be held accountable

for what that child did,

and he was the 1st child to be charged as an adult, I think, a 6 year old or something, or char I don't know, charged for something. But but,

again, it's

they don't even mention them. What happened to those kids? They got put to the state.

So, yeah, the state, they want that. They wanna take that kid from the parent. They don't wanna put the responsibility on the parent. And so what we're arguing is in the system we have now, if you wanted to change it, that would be a step towards it because it would be towards

the actual root of the problem, which is the more you're raising the Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Make the parents do it. Actually do it. We've been told that we can't bring up

at least one of the roots of the problems

because the question of the evening is school

shooters.

So if we're going to examine school shooters,

we should be allowed to fully flesh that out.

And that's going to open

several doors

that have

absolutely nothing to do with

whether or not the parent should be charged and everything to do with an entirely

different role of the state. Everything from the pharmaceuticals

and the school mandated

psychiatrists

and the freaking counselors

and

and and and.

Okay?

So if we're gonna talk about root causes,

perhaps we should actually talk about root causes in a safer way and YouTube friendly way as possible. Because I would love to do that

because this is a school shooter conversation.

Yeah. I agree with you. And I I'm I'm arguing that

to take that step now would be a step

in the right direction,

saying that we we hold you accountable for the actions of your child until they are what we agree upon is an adult, and

we're not just gonna you know, well, they are still gonna end up thrown in the foster care system.

But also that parent knows

that they're gonna be held criminally

accountable So then as well. Do you give the tools

back to the parents then? Right. I I can't give a dead child back. Like like, telling me that I can't tie in my hands behind my back and then telling me that I'm a bad boy because I can't reach up and grab the glass

doesn't doesn't pan out. And that's what the state has done. 100%

is tied the parents' hands behind the back. They can't discipline

their kids in

ways that actually work. We even though we went through 3 we went through at least 3 decades

of this soft hands off parenting,

then and watched it fail miserably.

Coincidentally,

how long ago did the school shooting start? About 10 years after that soft parenting.

Weird.

Ben, you mentioned the 10 to 15 years thing. Was that with the Crumbleys?

Say what now? Okay. So James and Jennifer Crumbley, the parents of a Michigan school shooter, Ethan Crumbley,

they were sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison this April, 2020.

They were convicted on 4 counts of involuntary manslaughter

for the role in the 2021 Oxford High School shooting where their son killed 4 students and wounded 7 others. The Crumbleys had bought their son the firearm used in the attack and were accused of neglecting clear warning signs of his deteriorating mental state. During the sentencing, both parents expressed sorrow with James Crumbley apologizing to the victim's families and stating that had he known what was happening, he would have acted differently.

Jennifer Crumbley, the mother, also expressed regret describing their family as average and insisting that she did not perceive the tragedy. However, family members of the victims expressed frustration accusing the Crumbley's of failing to take responsibility

for their actions and calling for accountability. This case marks a significant legal precedent

as it is the first time parents of school shooters have been criminally prosecuted

for their child's actions. So there's a precedent the one I was referring to. Yes. In fact, I read that

specific article even.

That's a good start.

That's that's app

Okay. Go ahead. Again, if it's if it's about deterrents,

we've got to examine

what the deterrents

is in reality.

If your

attempt is to

deter

okay.

State by state.

The it goes from 18 to 14

depending on the state. Again there are 26 states that already have

child access prevention laws on the book.

So

in Illinois for example,

if you're

14 or younger or 14 or older,

you're liable for,

the parents are liable for child access prevention laws,

the

more commonly

it's 18.

I think, Adam Lanza was referenced earlier. Wasn't he 19

when that happened?

Okay. So let's throw that out as an example,

and then let let's return to what just happened in Georgia where there was a 14 year old.

Now this particular

situation

is very, very weird,

and it's very, very weird

except for it's exactly like every other school shooting that we've witnessed

where the most common factor,

gentlemen,

isn't

whether or not the kid was on

behavioral meds,

it's not whether or not there was access to a firearm in the home,

it's not whether or not the kid was a loner

or

had, you know, trouble getting along with people. The most common factor

is previous contact with the FBI

and then a sudden uptick

in Internet use.

Well, I mean, you know, I mean, if you mean by a 100% the most common factor, I I I don't know what else to say about that. We're not on a conspiracy show, but that you can't deny that shit. It's a 100% of the time.

I I mean, that's just it's odd to me. It's odd to me that that's the most consistent factor. It's not even the weapon used.

Yeah. That's why I, you know, I agree with you, and that's why I say

it it would never happen. Because I mean, I I would even go so far to say it seems like most of these parents

were probably

involved

in whatever

psyop was taking place.

Most of them connected.

Most of them are connected to military

or, in some cases, banking. That was a weird coincidence.

2

big banking

fathers happened to their kids happened to be involved in one of these events.

So again,

investigating the parents would probably never happen. That might be the role of the media once it becomes a media circus. They're the

hive swarm army of the Internet sleuths on Reddit and other message boards and conspiracy forums and chat rooms are going to dig in and find all the information they possibly can about

events and people and personalities and Facebook profiles, Tumblr blogs, music that they've made on Sound, Bandcamp, and wherever else. There was an odd occurrence, yes, of a Walmart

El Paso event. I think his last name was Crusius.

The father having some strange ties

to therapy and psychology

had a strip mall where he was doing some sound bowl healing, and right next door to him was John of God cult members

hanging out with him. There are strange

occurrences.

Yes.

The parents,

are they aware? Are they involved?

Maybe they are. And if they are,

then they shall be held responsible. Well, I mean, if the parents are involved in a in a FBI SIOP, then then then definitely, yes. They should be held criminally,

liable for that. But you know what? You know, I I think that the kids who are the parents that go and take their children in to get them sexually transitioned,

they should be held criminally liable also. Like, you know, being some weird mental twisting for your kid, a 100%.

But

it it for most parents,

they're you are you don't even have that choice. And then the the factors

like Steve was saying, it

it's so weak, the factors that they do put out. Oh, he had he may he had angry messages.

Have you ever looked at any boy's notebook ever in the entirety of history? We're not blaming that boy's tree. 15 year old girl talk for 5 minutes.

We're not blaming My Chemical Romance, Marilyn Manson, or other email or goss bands, clearly. This isn't bowling for Columbine level where we're we're blaming Walmart for selling

bullets and handguns. What I'm saying is is the only points where they came up with, oh, the parents should have known that little boy was drawing pictures with guns and and killing things.

And so did every other little boy on the planet. I mean, it's just what boys do.

I really think it's important. I just I really think it's important to underscore that there's already a legal arbitration process for all of this, and it's civil court.

You can sue the parents into oblivion. Yeah. They don't have to go give up

their house,

their livelihood,

their freedom.

They don't have to give up any of that.

They can find other mechanisms

to pay off what they've been sued for. There's a pathway for retribution.

Why would you encourage,

let alone legislate,

the removal of freedom from the parents of a kid for what the kid did?

What there there's already a pathway for retribution.

Pause, guys.

The argument is parent should parents be charged in school shootings, held responsible for for school shootings?

Responsibility, yes or no. That's their argument. We're not saying how they're gonna be held responsible. If it's a financial thing out of the wallet, if if it's jail time, I don't know how they're gonna be held responsible. I'm I'm not deciding how they're held responsible. I'm just arguing that, yes,

when they're tried in court, when they're found

responsible for taking another life, the student is found responsible.

And as we saw in the Crumbley case, the parents were held

responsible for manslaughter.

And because they only had 4 hours a night to sleep because they're busy raising children, now they get 10 years

to sleep as much as they wanted in jail. So what happens in prison, Ben, to to to killers,

to the parents of child killers?

Well,

probably nothing. They would probably,

that's that's a pretty

respectable crime. They'd probably be alright.

I think it's interesting in this article that they don't mention the parents. They're actually protecting the parents.

They're protecting the parent of the perpetrator.

There's no discussion about the parents involvement of how a 6 year old child

has the wherewithal to take a pipe and go beat a baby almost to death.

And I'm not saying it's only the parents, but they should be included in the discussion

and they should know that they are potentially

what was that? So it tells you it's all two way, that you're very horrible,

although how can you even tell that a 6 year old is gonna do some crazy shit like that? That's insane.

But

the the the you can tell a 100%

that that's just a 2 a thing

then because they don't in any other instance

have this reaction. None.

But they're ready to take away guns. Coincidentally,

it's the same people

who already wanted to take away guns. It's But I'm I'm talking about a case where it's not even a gun. I'm not arguing against cyber attacks. I will get have they banned?

Is there a movement to ban lead pipes?

Is there a movement to ban baseball bats? I'm not talking I'm not talking about banning stuff. In water supplies is a real thing, and they've gone through and they send home lead tests. Is that what we're talking about? Like, drinking water? No. No. No. I'm just saying if we're talking about weapon of choice,

you know, the It's a great idea in the act. I'm saying the act. The act should be looked at. Why was this kid why did people not notice the warning signs?

And I would say in a place like Richmond, a 6 year old's a lot different than than what we're used to. And you probably did see some signs that this kid was, you know, outwardly violent and, you know, running the streets with 8 year olds and, you know, not being,

being neglected, basically. Being left to to man for himself and, you know. And again, like, the inner city is a little bit of a different argument, but I would say those parents should be held accountable too. And they should know that they're gonna be held accountable. They should know they're gonna be investigated. So so there should be no protection for their privacy.

Investigated. So so there should be no protection for their privacy.

What kid

as you say this, like it would like it's some kind of a like it's some kind of a crazy thing for a kid to be out on the street at 8.

Are are you are you kidding

me? We're fucking In Richmond?

We're fucking in California? Fucking Gen X, bro. We're fucking Gen X. Are you kidding me? Like, my parents weren't sure what city I was in after the time I would fix.

Richmond in the eighties was

This is nineties. 96.

You know? Yeah.

The Richmond in the nineties, similar

to Richmond today,

just like

the Bronx

in the eighties

is similar to the Bronx today.

You could argue that it's increased on a level, and you'd probably be correct in that assumption.

You would be. But that's,

that's Elmo.

Elmo. Well, hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. 80s violence compared to today?

It's okay. You

they don't report crime statistics

anymore.

That's part of a big freaking thing to where the Biden administration this is off topic, and I apologize for this. But,

the the,

most populous

30 cities in the US

have stopped reporting crime statistics to the FBI

and the FBI is what everybody cites

for crime statistics in the mainstream media. So the Biden administration

can go, Hey look, crime's gone down over the last 2 years.

That's an actual thing.

We actually prefer the crime of the nineties and when we grew up because

it was more gang

affiliated and

if I'm in the burbs and I go out to the wrong city, the wrong party, I might get shot. Right? That's different than what's happening now. And, again, I know it's being over reported, but now it's everyone's afraid of school. Everyone's putting gates around schools and locking up schools that used to be open. You could go there and bring your child there. Now they're all locked up because of the fear. Are we arguing that the parents should pay for the funerals of the dead

staff members? Metal detectors in the school. Who's paying who's paying for the funerals? Like, all's I'm saying is is eighties violence,

I don't know.

Maybe everybody else in the late 1980, but I did in the eighties. Should the parents speak the games? Fucking insane. The 3 strikes laws and the mandatory minimums,

while everybody hates them,

aid of violence is different. Yeah. No. I'm city. Bring them to a field, have them dig graves,

and then have them put dead bodies in them. Get closer to death. Realize what death is. We're talking about

the most frustrating thing when a life is taken from somebody at such a young age.

What are we doing with death? Why are we afraid of death? Why do we not recognize that death is a real final

terrifying

thing?

If our avatar dies in a video game, we just wait to respond. In real life, we don't respond.

Thank you for the moment of silence. Continue the debate.

Hang on. I've

you said something about my mic, and I'm trying to make sure it's

Yeah. Check to make sure. It sounded like maybe we're getting room audio.

Well, I have a a fan on, but I've got earbuds. Okay.

Yeah. It might be the fan.

Look. I

yeah. I

there's already a process for this.

The the fact that

you would

even consider

having

the state remove

not just the the kids' livelihood,

but the kids' ability

to because the kid's going to wind up with a shorter sentence than the parents

in most cases,

especially if they're

14,

16, something like that.

You're gonna wind up with a shorter sentence than their parents, so they're gonna come back to nothing. So you're going to guarantee

that that cat that the kid has even less of a shot

coming out of a a system guaranteed

to break him in the first place,

and you're gonna take away the one anchor that that kid has

coming out of that situation,

that to me

is the the most

egregious

theft

imaginable.

You're gonna take away the only thing that the kid has to stand on and the only people that would actually forgive him and accept him by making sure that they get locked away too, that their

house gets taken because that's gonna happen because how are you gonna pay a mortgage if both parents are locked away?

You're gonna make sure that there's

0 financial future, that there's 0 support networks starting with the most important people in this life.

Okay. Sure. Yeah. Let's go ahead and make that a law. That sounds great. That sounds forward thinking. That sounds like something that a a democracy or a government would produce. I guarantee you that most of these cap laws

were tacked on to something else that was a must pass in every single state legislature that approved it. And that the vast majority of people had it actually been put to a vote, would have gone, what are you crazy?

That that's nuts.

You guys keep talking about these cap laws, and I'm I'm calling cap on that.

We're not saying access.

We're not saying access to firearms. You could be you could have all the firearms you want. You could train your child how to use it. If your child takes that gun and goes,

you know, and is showing signs that they're gonna do something, you know, wicked with it, and they go to school, and they shoot up all their friends, and they shoot up their teacher, whatever, then they kill themselves,

the parents should be looked at. The parents should know they're gonna be looked at, and they should know that there will be criminal charges against them if

a case of neglect is found.

So the the reason that

the,

people

who

actually have been parents, especially of multiple teenagers,

are all very much against this even if they are,

also against the second amendment

is because

idea like you're some kind of a fucking god being that

gets to control who these people are.

And anybody that's actually raised a teenager,

a 100%

knows that this is not the case. Now myself, I've raised 7 of my own kids,

and I've got 7 grandkids.

And one thing that you notice very quickly, even though you're the same parent,

that especially for people like myself who punched out a bunch of kids young, and so they're all pretty close together. These are vastly different people. It's amazing. Almost

like they have their own personality that had nothing to do with the

parent,

really.

Like they developed themselves.

And,

again, in a state where

today where

that's encouraged heavily

and they're told in every aspect that they're autonomous

and that the parents don't have rights over them.

And then except for, oh, hey. Except for if your kid does something wrong, then you're liable.

That's insanity at its freaking finest. Well, you are liable because at some point, due to the nature and nurture thing, you recognize that

the child that you are the guardian of doesn't represent your values,

doesn't listen to you, doesn't respect you, doesn't behave

in a way that allows them to be self

sufficient

to graduate, to become an adult their own. At that point, if you have ask you a question real quick, man. You as a non parent, how would you address that with your imaginary kid? I have brothers and sisters. I've been with other children. No. I've been with other parents. How would you how would you address that? What would be your first question mark?

If I had a kid

that was

not responding kindly

to positive reinforcement,

to discipline,

to time outs,

to therapy, to to religious,

involvement,

spiritual development,

you know, yoga,

kung fu,

karate, you know, arts and crafts, other like, go to a dude ranch and ride horses. Go to the forest and chop down trees and pretend you're playing mind like, if I've once I've done everything

to try and say, hey. Are we seeing things eye to eye? Are you

the spawn of

an evil seed? Are you

are you gonna hurt yourself and hurt others?

And if that's proven to me, then at some point, I have to say, you know what? This kid is not mine. I am not the guardian on this kid. This kid not cannot fall under my guardianship.

I'm not responsible, but because I'm legally responsible and holding on to that guardianship,

then I need to be held liable. But if I recognize that the kid can't be controlled, I need to give up control of the kid and say,

take it away. So your your solution is abdication of parenthood if it gets out of hand?

It's such a small, small number.

Ben, do you wanna

do you you you wanna feel this one?

Oh, boy. And I and this is, probably why the argument of taking away the parent's ability to parent is not landing,

because neither of these have raised their hand. Taking it away. I'm saying the the parent

the guardian

says I can't guardian this child. This this kid is not falling into my guardianship.

So I'm

volunteering. Basically

99.99999999999%

of teenagers.

That's just just that that's like the the when you wake up,

it it that is your base setting for the day. Do you hate teenagers?

Do you do you think every teenager is up to get you back? Listen.

Listen. Listen. Just because I think all

human beings

Ben hates teenagers. In my throat.

Parents and hate cities.

Dude, okay, man. If I could quote Bernie Mac for a second, dude, you you don't you don't you don't understand.

They're fucking they're evil. They wake up evil. They wake up spiteful. They go to bed spiteful. They brush the tea spiteful. They comb their hair spiteful. They eat breakfast spiteful. They just fucking exist. Hey.

You.

That's what they do.

It's

okay.

The they're you know, it like, you can work through it in most cases, but as Ben has cited over and over and over,

all of the tools of parenthood have been removed from the parent

over the years.

You are

very, very, very lucky if you're in a situation

where you could

homeschool

or pick a charter school. You're very fortunate

if you're in that position.

Most

people aren't. The reason I broke down the whole schedule

for

how much time you actually get to spend with your kid if you're a provider,

if that's what if you're

doing your natural function as a man,

if you're doing that role,

that's why I broke down the time schedule, my friend, because

that's realistically

what you get.

And the simple fact of the matter is you have that much time

to impart wisdom

to your kids. You have that much time to instruct them if you're doing a goddamn

thing

for your family. I wanna back up what Alan to parents. I wanna back up what Alan is saying.

So,

in my situation,

I'm gonna share a little bit. I do have 2 teenage children.

Both of them have had issues with self harm.

And,

my 16, almost 17 year old son is

has been going through some issues. And

me as his stepdad,

you know, I don't have complete control over what happens and what decisions are made in terms of,

hospitals, doctors, things like that. You know, I have my own thoughts. But

just like Alan was saying, I'm looking for what does this kid wanna do? What is he interested in? What is he passionate about? The other day, I said, hey. I'm gonna sign you up for jiu jitsu. I think you do good at that. We went to Guitar Center. He started playing with the DJ equipment. I'm like, hey. This is this is something. He needs something. He needs something to do with his time because he's struggling that jujitsu and goes and breaks a kid's neck at school.

Well, if he if he does it be charged? If he Could you be charged? Because you took him to jujitsu class. They can investigate me. They can investigate me and see You took him to jiu jitsu class. You were liable.

You made him a human weapon. I am liable for him, and I am responsible for him, and I am responsible to do everything I can to prevent him from feeling the way he's feeling. Are are you doing those things? Yes.

Yes. I just said Is he perfect? Is he still doing some fucked up things?

He's getting better. He's getting better. You know? But again, if someone looks at us fucked up things.

Of course. Of course. Do you want him to continue doing those things?

I mean, you know, it depends on what it is. I don't, you know, I don't want him to hurt anybody

else. I don't want him to hurt himself.

Are they turning the weeds? The Stanley Goldfish. Are they doing Absolutely.

They do extensive

work to try and help him and still failed

and not you're still not there.

No. He's improving.

He's improving

all the extra work. Parent

that's ever raised a teenager

including these ones. Not these parents that let them sit in their room and and sulk and build on their own. Our point for us. He's saying that most parents,

most guardians of children

don't have to worry about this. We're talking about such a small

percentage

outlier. It's such a tiny number. Tiny, Marcus.

That's alright. You can yell at me. Debating the cats.

Okay. So

look. Let let's be let's be perfectly clear about this. You're

advocating

that

it and apparently, this goes from 6 years old

to 18 or 21

or whatever a kid is now legally declared

an adult.

We're we're advocating

loss of freedom,

loss of property,

loss of

livelihood

for an entire family.

And

the It's an eye for an eye. The The family was destroyed. That's okay. That's not that's that's actually not how the law is written. That's how the bible is written. I agree with that. The bible is destruction.

It's mutually assured destruction. All the And that's a a a treaty for

potential to avoid nuclear

holocaust.

That usually is a huge destruction. Yeah. And it is of a son or a daughter

is Hiroshima. It's a holocaust event. It's terrible

for the family.

So we're going to go now, and we're going to go and

murder all the hang on. Hang on. We're gonna go ahead, and we're gonna go murder all of the parents of US soldiers

who killed people overseas

because an eye for an eye is 10 years of prison time

for for a manslaughter.

So okay. So they should be they should be in prison for 10 years. That's what you're saying. That's what happened with the case of the Crumbley family. The mom and dad Which is an outlier

and which is a very, very difficult case. We are in agreement. And if that it is not have If you don't have,

multiple

concurrent

agendas

that

allow for this particular type of law fair to happen,

you would never see the result.

The result is because there are

multiple

concurrent

agendas

that need to be met. The

limited

ability

for any citizen to obtain and keep firearms is on the line in each and every single one of these cases.

Not only that, but more and more

The crumblies aren't present. It's been sold as a deterrent. If you look at every single article in the media, at least the mainstream media about this, there is the,

the point driven home that this is to deter people from buying firearms in the first place. This is to deter people from keeping and storing guns in their house.

It's sold that way. It's been argued that way

by both of you tonight as a deterrent.

So don't

Gun control doesn't work. Parental control

does work.

It's not about controlling the weapon. It's about John, you're running for senate?

For house? It's not about

controlling the weapon. It's about shaming the parent,

putting the parent

Shaming the parent by taking away

their entire

existence.

Should that I mean, yeah, dude. There's a civil process for there's a civil court process for this. You can already

get,

more than you you get more

in terms of actual

ability

to

give yourself,

the opportunity to heal

by collecting a large amount of money

from that parent

rather than sending them to prison.

You get more,

you get

the ability

to live in a way that will allow you to heal

unless you're only

the your focus is on punishment.

If that's your focus,

then you're never going to heal because you're always going to seek punishment

in every redress

that you perceive

whether or not it's real.

Well, Marcus made a good point about how all these cases are settled out of court. Why not why not promote the the fact that these parents are being sued?

Promote the fact that they're being held accountable.

Possibly that would influence them to do your better job. Our point then that it's more about a 2 a issue than anything else. Family.

Possibly, they still have a family, and they don't wanna ruin the whole family.

Because one kid went nutty.

If the one kid

is on the process I mean, it it's interesting to be about the the biblical

eye for an eye, but apparently being able to stone a bad kid, that one's not on the table. Like like We don't the there there's an f b in front of the eye for an eye on this in every single case.

Yeah. Well, you know, I would follow Bernie Mac, and I would just, you know, smack them kids around a little bit. You know? Did the haunting of the glow in the darks, the the glowies

are certainly there's some suspicion happening around. You go to jail.

Now you actually are chargeable.

Yep.

We'll change that one. We'll have to change that one. Kicks in your door, takes everything

from you, including

your ability to gain employment

afterwards.

Yeah.

If you ground your kids How are you gonna support your kids?

If you ground your kids too long. Ankle with lamb. See, that's just my whole point. If you're willing to concede I understand. I understand. Concede

that

all the tools of parenting need to be returned to the parenting. And at that point in time Yeah. Some liability

to the parent could be accountable. Like, you didn't do a good job. You had all the tools. I'll get yeah. I'll give you that too. If if the all of the available tools of parenting

because

therapy is largely useless.

In most cases,

it results in punishment of the parents, which

is therapy makes the kid worse because they become more

justified.

And anybody that's ever dealt with

with therapy, all that therapy is is to glorify their freaking nonsense,

and the therapists are crazy too. They're, like, sitting there glorifying their own insanity. Sure. So then if the when the child realizes that the adults are just as messed up as they are, that everyone involved in the society is

operating, not knowing what's going on or how to act. You know, this is an argument of morality being objective or subjective. We're not arguing about nature versus nature. The simple argument

that we're making tonight

is that the parents,

the guardians, the legal guardians

of children

who violently

take other lives,

that's what it is. It's not a beautiful thing. The nature versus nurture argument, though. The fact

that this is 7 human beings exactly the same. 7 human beings find that

experience

entirely different, and 7 human beings

react to it entirely different.

Yeah. The this is about arbitrary

application

of the law when it's most convenient for the state when they need to fit a certain agenda.

There's no other way you could conceivably frame it because it's always been applied

arbitrarily.

That's never used in cases where you've got a 14 year old kid

in Chicago

or Detroit or Baltimore

who pops off and shoots a handful of people on the corner. It's never used in a case where there's,

any other minority

gang

in the entire United States. If it's arbitrary application of law,

let let me and and then I'll I'll I'll give you as much time as you want. But if it's going to be arbitrary application of law when it dovetails nicely

with a certain agenda that's being pushed through the government,

then you have to recognize that on its face. If you can't incorporate the fact that 100%

of the time, the common denominator is prior contact with the FBI,

Why are we even talking about whether or not the parents should be locked up? If we're going to examine root causes, let's examine the actual root causes.

Because if we didn't take this side, we couldn't have a debate.

I'm trying to hold this as long as I can, man. It's it's Oh, so Marcus earlier, Marcus totally took a shit position and then grins and looks down. Oh god. I I couldn't help. I was like, oh god. Oh god. This is like, when we were when I was having to hold

the Hollywood

is not dead and is okay, I'm just like,

oh. Oh,

yeah.

Is this is is this the, the end the end of the, formal debate and we go into the. Yeah.

And the gloves are not now the pants are coming off. So let's let's talk about what we talked about. I wanna make one point. Something I was thinking about is that in most of these

mass

school shootings Mhmm.

It's never it's never a foster kid.

It's all they always have a mom or a dad or they always have some backstory with this family.

It's kind of strange. I mean, I I researched it. I didn't really find anything.

I would imagine in the inner city, you'd find more of that,

kids in the system, you know,

committing these types of crimes. But,

interesting that the ones we hear about, it's always, you know, oh, the mom, you didn't have any control over him. He didn't have any friends. The dad wasn't involved,

or the 2 parents are you know, basically, I agree with you. They they they are being made an example of in order to push an agenda. I totally agree with you guys on that. So I just find that interesting. If it was a natural thing, you would think kids in the system

would be more likely to commit these types of crimes.

Well and that's that's kind of the word there that I'd like to focus on is this idea of natural,

organic,

nature versus nature. The child was, you know, raised, and then he went to school, and he was bullied for whatever reason. And then, you know, he went online. He was bullied. So the only reason the only way he could end the bullying

is to use a bullet to put someone down for good.

It's hard to argue this

and not bring up the point that there is so much,

conspiracy tied into it. There's so much questioning of all of the facts and the reporting

in the narrative to bring up the fact that there's already sort of government legislation

ready to go for such a time as a crisis. You know, don't let a good crisis go to waste. That type of thing is the hardest thing to argue. So arguing

at face value what the argument is, you know, parents of shooters should be held responsible for the shooting itself as if as if we're we're implying as if the parents themselves did the the killing, the shooting, that of thing. That was sort of the

contrite

contrived part of the argument that we had to force ourselves to argue,

which was difficult to hold up.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it really is. It's a a difficult position to maintain

because

it's

inherently stupid,

and it only exists because we live in a a highly litigious culture

that seeks

the immediate

and maximum

financial gain first.

Right. And that's why

the criminal cases are so few and far between.

It's only when it dovetails

with a a concurrent narrative

that it becomes a, you know,

a flash in the pan. Sure.

But immediately

high profile media case.

And then it goes away

because it's so difficult to actually prove that.

You you it just the rare to the point, not because of necessarily the parenting or the situation or the circumstance,

but always the narrative.

So what's the caveat today? Have to wonder though, because

as I was looking up,

trying to look up statistics,

when I talked about, dysmorphia

having a a heavy

percentage.

You know, you look at percentage of mass shooters as a in their dysmorphia as opposed to the general public and things like that, and they don't even give you those psychological

breakdowns

in that kind of thing. So what and so what I really wonder again

I I and I said talked about this just a little bit

was,

that they've altered the the

DSS or,

whatever the

the mental health

manual that says whether you're a nutcase or not. And they've made so many alterations to that. Well, I have to wonder if at the same time,

because you see in today's world where they're trying to criminalize almost being masculine

where they start putting that into the into the,

mental disease.

And then well,

obviously, your kid suffered from mental disease. You can see it. Look. They had all these symptoms. And if that doesn't start bringing up

the percentage of parents being held accountable

just because their boys acted like boys.

And the comment that was brought up is is the caveat to the entire argument. If

if in a court of law and the court of

the Internet hive mind, if the consensus reality says, yeah. This thing,

it happened. It's a terrible tragedy.

There was no superfuge.

There was no other involvement.

The killer is not a patsy. We can clearly see that. Then, yeah, the parents held responsible. I don't know more details in the specific case of the Crumbleys.

What's going on there? I think we need to look into that more. I know that's a recent event. So the news,

all the social media,

all the available information that we could dig through

probably is still online,

but in a

it might not be. So, you know I would wonder if if to match John's point where he brought up earlier, which was super interesting that a heavy percentage of banksters and things

are is all the ones that actually have been charged, have they been poor people

Who have actually been charged. Where the crumblies, they sound the the what little what I read about them, what little they,

really delved into the family life, it didn't seem like they had a whole lot of money. Like, most likely,

to see to Steve's point, he dad probably worked 16, 18 hours. Shit. There was a time when Steve, I swear to God, was working 20 hours, 21 hours a day when he was trying to Ford living in Santa Cruz.

Yeah.

I mean, that's reality.

The the the and, again, if you're

making the tacit agreement

with

the state and the school

that they're responsible

for your kid

when they're on school grounds,

then

why are they always by default the victim?

Yeah.

You know?

If there's supposed to be measures in place at that school in the first place,

and, you know, I know we're on YouTube, but,

there there's

a lot of evidence

to suggest

that there's, you know, outside

orchestration

for

an overwhelming number of these events. You say the music is discordant in the orchestration?

I you know, it

I'd I'm saying it strikes a very, very specific chord,

and,

and that's

unavoidable

at this point if you've looked into any of these at all.

Yeah. The like I said, the 100%,

Mark, that that's what really you know, if it was 80%,

the FBI could be like, yeah. We have reports on that kid. We start keeping an eye on him. The 100%,

100%,

and that things always deteriorate

afterwards,

after the the this contact that the kid gets

noticeably worse.

How do you not look at that? That's just absolute insanity.

And like I said, the fact that

throughout our history,

all these kids the the one caveat

that I would give them and people that are making the psychological

argument,

they said that there's a component of,

sought notoriety

to it. And I I can totally give them that. You can't hardly argue that one, you know, similar to, you know, the

you know, there's been lots of cases of kids that were feeling like nobody cared about them or even knew their name. And next thing you know, they're out doing wild crazy shit to try and,

you know, always be remembered. That's

that's a hard argument.

I think part of that psyop, it was probably to

instigate that. Right? They probably hoped there were a lot more kids who would see it and then go, you know, enact their own

massacre. But,

I kinda think that that actually hasn't happened.

And like you guys are saying, most of these cases, at least the ones that get reported on,

seem to be seem to have some involvement with,

the institutions

in one way or the other. Either these kids were spoken to by

FBI agents or, you know, somebody else and,

obviously they're all on medication,

you know, talking to a psychiatrist. The guns that they can't afford and their family can't afford. Like Right. Well and that was,

one of the only questions in the chat was should the people who prescribe

SSRIs be held

accountable? Yeah. If we're gonna do that, if we're gonna go this route Absolutely. You know?

Yes.

Yes. I would think yeah. I would agree with that for sure. And again, that's why

trying to take the argument

like like like Marcus said in a contrived way, putting myself in a box and saying, okay, well, if we start with this,

then there

that would be a move toward

giving the parents back more responsibility,

getting into, you know, not finding a pill to fix everything,

realizing that these pills cause

the,

the effect that they're supposed to be fixing. Right?

Antipsychotics

cause psychotic thoughts.

Antidepression pills cause depression. So, yes, there's a bigger educational piece that would needed to go

be needed to go along with it. And and, you know, truth be told, I'm not for more laws. I don't want people to go to prison, but I do think it's interesting reading that article where they don't even name the parents and all these cases get settled out of courts.

It's showing you that they aren't putting any responsibility on the parents.

You know, they want the kids in the system. They want these events to continue.

So it is a 2 a issue on that point. And I would imagine anyone truly arguing it would be promoting gun control laws as well. Yeah. So that answers the question, who who benefits from these tragedies? Clearly, it's Michael w Smith who writes a entire album dedicated to what happened in Colorado

in 1999.

There are religious people who write books about it. There are parents

of

victims and parents of perpetrators who write books, and they go on speaking tours. And they,

you know, it that helps them heal through music and literature and poetry.

I don't know. It's a messy, disgusting thing. I wish it didn't happen.

You know, fortunately, it doesn't happen

often. It's not

a thing that happens often. So I might parlay this into,

you know, talking about other topics, other topics of debate that were brought up that you guys would wanna focus on.

We need to get some guests.

Guests. Or at least,

so that way we can,

have some people that we aren't gonna feel bad poking at is hard.

It looks like BG is supporting our argument here. It's not the pit bull. It's it's how he's trained. Well, what I liked about earlier, somebody said something about that.

So

to my point,

that's fine if you charge somebody because their pit bull runs out and bites somebody,

except for if you don't,

if you make a law against chains and leashes.

And that's what they've done to parents.

That's what they've done to parents. They're like, you don't get to you don't get to be a proper parent and use the tools available to parents.

But now we're holding you accountable for the for the end result

even though we took away your tools. So to me, it'd be an you know, it'd be an analogy to telling me that I'm responsible for this dog biting somebody, but then also telling me I wasn't allowed to chain the dog up.

So what are the tools that parents have had in the past, and what have been taken away from the state or, you know, spankings? Is that what we're talking about here? Is that going to get everything? Huge.

I

mean,

I'm not biblical where I think you should be stoning children. Although

does anybody remember that movie with Macaulay Culkin where he was just absolutely

fucking scary, and they were all super nice people, and the kids, like, run around just murderous and shit? That's that's why his parents left him home alone. He was a bad kid.

They need to, like,

drive with their kids in the the bed of the truck again. We need to bring that back.

I remember driving on the freeway with my uncle in the back of the truck, like, damn, it's just

such a different time. Riding a shotgun. It's not just the

discipline.

Like, since I've been a kid, they've made laws that made it so kids can't be responsible.

And what they've done is is they've made it so we have worse kids.

When I was a kid,

like, you I've had a job since I was 12,

an actual paying job since I was 12.

There wasn't any federal labor laws. And I still I still I was on the honor roll in school.

I was in athletics, and I still was able to have a job from the time I was 12 until

fuck. By the time I was 17, I already had a kid, so I was working 2 jobs. I was working overnight and everything. Are you arguing to pay children a living wage?

Oh, definitely. I got paid. I got paid like

like anybody else at work, you know. But,

you we took away the ability and made gave kids as Peter Pan life.

And then

we wonder why they're so useless and stupid and irresponsible at 18. Well, they haven't had to practice.

When I was 12, I got paid $6 an hour to drive the fucking tractor for the hay wagon,

and I got paid an extra dollar. An hour?

Yeah. And I got paid an extra dollar

on top of that for each and every one of my friends that I got to sign up to go fucking bail. So I got so I got I got at least 3 of my friends behind me. So for city slingers And I'm driving. Slingers. And I was getting $9

an hour, bro, in 1990.

So 99 stickers.

Make a balex to find an hour. I had fucking Thanks, Jerome. Skateboards out the ass. Hey. I had fucking On a farm. All yeah. It was great.

So the vernacular said bailing is like leaving leaving the farm. Leaving Well, I had to put the year before that. I was the fucking sucker bailing,

and then I figured out that you got paid a base

of fucking

5 does not mean to leave the farm. It means to stay on the farm, to collect the straw

into a circle, tie it up in bundle. No. No. These were Paid those. Rectangular

Threads. Bundles. Square bales. Was it straw? Was it hay? We have to explain what a farm is and Okay. What farm, what hay is, what straws. What's the difference? This was the actual hay. It was.

And for horses?

It was for cows. For cows? It was for They eat they eat it or they sleep There was a dairy farm that was, well, all over the I grew up in the you know what? Central Indiana.

The reason that you use straw for bedding is because it's not got any organic material in it, like, all that's left. If you actually leave a if you try to use hay as bedding, it'll mold like a sound bitch.

Yeah. We're we're talking to city slickers who are afraid of guns and weapons. They're afraid of farms and cows and animals and allergies in barns

and everything outside of the city. Bedding pays for eating.

But, yeah, you got okay. So you got paid 3.50 an hour to bail.

Right? Which was nice in 19 9.

But you were it was

child fucking of 275

where I'm from? It was child labor. So Families Yeah. Probably don't pay it. They probably don't give it a loan. So they say, hey. You're staying on my homestead. You're staying on my we're we're mom's feeding you, making you a meal. Yeah. I told my I I told my dad when I was 9 that I wanted a bike, and he was like, great. Get in a truck. Let's go get you a bike. And he drove me, like, 3 quarters of a mile down the road and pulled over, and there was a little, like, trailer office. And he signed me up to d Tassel Korn.

And I got the bike at the end of the fucking season.

I did.

If we if we wanted freaking deep clothes that were a little bit different, not that my dad used to just buy me pack blue pocket t shirts and wrestlers. I had to go pick weeds out of the sunflowers field. And at the end of the day, they'd take you to the thrift store, and you could pick out some shit from the thrift store that you wanted. You guys worked too hard. Here's the easy trick to making money.

Go buy go buy cheap pumpkins, and then resell them in your front yard and just look cute. When someone drives up and they want a pumpkin or a gourd or squash, they ask you how much kid. You just look at them like,

I don't know. I wanna go on a missions trip. I wanna go to bible camp.

I know Christians are good for sucking money. That's, like, their biggest they're they're very generous. Yep. Yep.

I'll I'll consider that. I will. I will.

Yeah. Could you imagine a 6 year old shooting their shooting their teacher? That's fucking insane.

That's crazy.

Federal charges?

The federal charges because the 6 year old was talking to a federal agent. Is that what happens?

Well,

now the thing is is this probably federal like,

this gets a little funny. Like, was this on a reservation or anything like that? Because that automatically takes it to federal. Like,

because state

can't have authority on In Virginia?

Registry. She said it was in Virginia.

Yeah. I think you bring up a good point about, you know, just,

the

the neotenizing,

I think that's the word, neotenizing

of of all of us and how, you know, we kind of created adolescence.

There was no such thing as adolescence. We created high school, made it mandatory, and I had friends who definitely would have benefited from being able to go into a trade,

but they were all encouraged to, you know, get through school. And I'm sure this is a part of what No Child Left Behind was,

to keep these kids in the system.

And,

yeah, I just again, it's systemic

and, definitely needs to be changed on on multiple levels. Could we debate that teenagers are or are not real?

That is a construct? Now now what we need to debate is For sure. Is

once a kid is between 12

19,

we wrangle them all up and put them on an island.

And then a bunch of explosives

underneath it. And where the debate actually is is that particular group, whether that was just a bad group and we should just blow the whole island up and then start over,

or or whether that's a good group we should let out into society. That's where the actual debate should be.

In the middle of the day, Will. You wanna go to the Middle East and have a debate?

Peace in the Middle East?

Oh,

that

cards.

Can you even have that on YouTube?

Oh, shit.

The worst part is is it's not even just humans. Like, I live on a farm and I raise a 1000000 animals. And like these guys, they they reach a certain age and these guys aren't quite there. They're at the age where they still have to be all about me, so they're bouncing off of me, but they still want my attention.

And then they reach that adolescent age that all of a sudden, they don't want nothing to do with you. They're just rude. They're fucking your shit up. They're fighting with each other. They hate their mom. Like like, with animals,

animals at least get off the hook. Like, that kid starts hitting that age, animals roll out. Like, they're like, this one's mom,

I I see her once a week at this point. She's like, oh, no. My kids still live there. Oh, I'm gonna go over there then.

Yeah. This comment this comment is a topic that we've kind of been floating around.

I work in childcare, so I've had,

you know, parents react to men working in the childcare field.

And, but Yeah. Marcus Marcus has a a bunch of information about it. Call it dossier. There's other websites that just you click on the tag, and they have all the stories.

He's got lots of stories saved up. You guys are whoever takes the the the Women women in education.

Some of them are married or engaged to other men, and they still

still fall into the temptation of Snapchat

and sending explicit

imagery to 12 year olds,

male or female.

So there's this concern that,

you know, the education system

probably doesn't have enough teachers, and the teachers that they do have

haven't gotten the full education to figure out how to be an adult and separate yourself

from romantic and not not even romantic. This isn't like love letters and Valentine's. This is like

x x x rated material.

And then I guess the argument expands to now is that creating

a cheese, c

pizza, p situation where

you have adult educators

asking minors to create images that are illegal?

Well, I

you can look at this as

an overall issue of the state replacing

the church

and

the teachers

replacing the priesthood.

Man, that's that's not in the very, very, very Catholic

sense. You know? That's a very astute point, but let's, let's erase that from the record. So we, introduced that on a new episode

on another Tuesday. That's that's that's the juicy stuff.

Yeah. This is an interesting point that she makes too is that has that just been going on forever, but now we're in a time where everyone talks about it. And like you said, there's Snapchat and there's evidence.

I would draw a digital trial. Once again to social media, because I think that part of the reason that you're seeing

such a heavy sexualization

with women going on is, again, things like Snapchat. What happens on Snapchat?

They show pictures of their of their tits and ass in order to get most the most likes, the most worked up. Well, then all that does is is put that in them in that situation.

So,

you see these older women

who

they hit an age where naturally they should have moved into the loving mother position,

which is just a highly respected position,

But they've not done anything to be that loving mother. They've spent their whole life selling themselves

for likes

and attention

and all that attention because it's all visual,

of course, had to be sexually oriented.

So when they get to these middle ages,

they still crave that attention. They still crave to be valid.

They they still want younger

men to see them in the same way and get the attention that they'd started getting. Where they want to be the 16 year old with all the boys chasing after him and blah blah. But now they're also an adult. So now they're going to do it in adult ways, including

hard

sex. And just like the 14 15 year olds that are going, should I have sex with the boy so he likes me? Them girls, they're definitely having sex with the boys.

I would make the case that schooling period,

the entire,

arithmetic

reading, all of that,

I don't think anybody should be taking that until they're teenagers period. I think that taking kids away

and forcing that nonsense on them instead of letting them be home where they gain morals,

where they have people that love them, they start learning how to live. I think that's one of the biggest,

travesties that ever happened. And, like, Steve was saying, where we don't even have a choice of being parents anymore, we are forced to give this what normally would have been called secondary schooling

to the youngest of kids. Well, not everybody needs to know all that kind of shit. Maybe that kid could have been doing

construction work or woodwork

or or becoming electrician.

Maybe we don't know how to build anything anymore, and our our degradation

of our building, like the whole Tartarians want to talk about,

is because

we don't let kids

start doing those things from childhood, and that being the thing that they learn how to do. Instead, we're like, well, no. They gotta learn their arithmetic and learn geometries and history and things like that.

I get it. That makes a a a what higher society would consider a a a a more complete person.

Well, that's because they don't have any

respect for the trades. All they have respect for is Greek philosophers

sitting around, humping little bulls, and we wonder why we're in this weird position.

You know, Rudolf Steiner, he didn't think children should even start writing

and learning their letters until they were, like, 7 years old. Yeah. You know? So, I mean, it's I agree. It goes even even deeper.

And, you know, I worked again in education and, you know, homeschooling my son. He comes with me to the childcare center, and so he's kinda getting a little bit of both worlds.

But,

yeah, I've changed a lot from, you know, back in the day with my daughter. I was, like, trying to get her to read as early as possible, and I've just realized that, like, they all they all pretty much level out when they're 8 years old even if your kid's reading when they're 3. Mhmm. You know, most kids aren't becoming geniuses, Doogie Howser,

you know, skipping grades.

You know? So and kids have strengths. You know? These young kids I see that are struggling, these young boys, they just have so much energy. You know? And they just need to be outside and, like, running and and getting that out of their system.

And, yeah, the system is just set up to do the opposite of that.

Yeah. No. It's designed to generate,

like, Carlin said, obedient workers.

From the time that you're, what, preschool starts at, like, 3 or 4 for kids?

Yeah.

So

the they've got

15 years of their life

where where it's ground into them

how to conform,

obey,

not think for themselves,

get punished for having independent thought, get punished for

deploying critical thinking

especially at the wrong time.

And again, you've got

realistically

unless you're very fortunate,

4 to 5 hours a day

with with your kid. And that's if you ignore your wife

entirely.

And she's gonna be thrilled about that. How much time on average

does a wife need with a husband?

You don't have to answer that now. I mean, think about it.

My wife and I, I think that that's part of why the,

2020 was so hard for people.

I think most people in the relationship don't spend any time together. And once they were forced to be home and had to spend time with each other, they're like, I don't really like you, dude. We work together, yes. You know? Where, my wife and I, and it's not like we're constantly talking or interacting.

But, you know, unless I'm down working, which I am down for quite a few hours a day, you know, may but

4 or 5,

I'm coming in. We're interacting with each other all day, every day, basically, and,

that's not uncomfortable for us. She's my best friend and partner. You know? Like like

Yeah. I can confirm that having spent,

a lot of time there.

Yeah. Yeah.

Yep. And and, honestly, I think that that's part of why most marriages don't work. Like, these people grow in different directions

and don't learn to keep that

relationship together, and then all of a sudden they find out, you know,

that's also I think why there's such a rash of post

retirement divorces.

Why that also there's a huge spike again

in that because, again, these people spent

their entire lives becoming different people and not even knowing each other. And all of a sudden, they they are they're they're at home together and they're like, dude, I don't even like you. What the hell? Let's say Fate forces them to be guardians of their biological children. They stay together for the kids. Once the kids leave the house, then it's

a different story. They have to reevaluate their needs.

The the I mean, this is a whole other conversation,

and and I gotta dip.

But,

Yeah.

The you know,

there's been

a a number of different things that have sort of aligned

in order to highly incentivize

divorce

and multiple marriages.

And that, you know, that that should be a conversation for another day. Oh, I get it for sure.

Yeah. The there are, you know, the relationships

that seem to work out best

are the relationships

where people are quite literally living in each other's back pocket

and fucking get to know each other,

you know. And then

when you learn, like,

if you're committed,

if you want the thing to work and you want the thing to last, then you're going to do the things that make the other person happiest the most, and you're going to develop

firm solid boundaries early.

And if you're not willing to do if you're not willing to do those two things and if both of you aren't willing to respect those things, it ain't gonna fucking work.

Yep.

I agree with you. Let's get GLO on and see if we can make the debate. Should men get prenuptial

agreements

at this point in time? And I think he'll be a hot one. He'll bring some real heat with that.

And,

yeah, this is just a weird world. I personally am not a prenuptial

agreement guy,

but I don't think again, most people have the relationship I have where Christie and I for years knew each other and spent every day around each other,

you know, substantial hours.

And and,

like, Steve was saying where she was acting in every way, a wife and a loving mother, which I which I really wish,

through this, one of the big things that people need done that I wish I could get through to the younger people is is how important the loving mother is. Like, honest like, legit. Christy could've came up and put on a g string

and did a sexy dance and touched my Peter in a 1000000 different ways, and I would never cared. The day that she went and while I had to work too much,

my daughter had problems. She went and picked up my grandkids in South Dakota

and brought them home

and was taking care of my grandkids.

Like, that that woman that's gonna make sure that your world is right while you keep doing the things that make that world better and providing for her, that's such a giant respectable position,

and it's so much more important than

if we're using the classical terminology,

the loving mother as a poor as opposed to, like, the horror of Babylon, the young girl that's out, and she's only sexuality.

It's this woman that's a realized woman that truly is about bringing love and and caring and stability to the people around her. Oh my god. That is that is something. I tell you what, you know what? Nobody cared about

Stifler's mom.

But you know what? The loving mother that made cookies and raised the kids on the block and kissed their knees when they were hurt and shit, go do something stupid to her.

See what happens. See if you don't find 10 kids from the block, all there pissed off and ready to tear some things up. That girl that just is using herself for a piece of ass, she don't get that.

Maybe we get Fred Durst to guest debate with us and determine if it was all about the the Yeah. You hanging out with Fred a lot these days. Yeah. That's the top of the World Trade Centers. Yeah.

Alright, guys. That was a great debate. Gonna wrap it up. Let's wrap it up. Wrapping it up. Thank you for joining us, Steve. That was a lot of fun. Heck yeah, man. Thank you guys for for having me aboard. That was, that was a good one. Knows where Steve is, but for those who don't, amwakeupshow.com.

Is that a real

web page? Is that a real website?

No. Go to amwakeup.com

in a web browser and get some information there. Best damn morning show on the interwebs, and we also have the the fucking coolest T shirts on the planet. Where else you gonna get

Bill Cooper on a pale horse? Where?

Where? I defy you. That's actually a pale horse. Mhmm. I I see it.

Yeah. Bill Cooper's visage.

Mhmm. Yeah. Beautiful.

So a n wake up show dot com for that.

See you next week. You guys, thank you very, very much.

See you next Tuesday. That's Love you guys. A word. I hope you can't stay on the stream. You better cut me off the couch. Oh, fast. That's a good promotion. We're leaving soon in, like, 10 days or something. 12 days, we're leaving. So It's happening real soon.

See you next Tuesday.

That should be our our outro.

Alright, guys.

Have a good night.

Yo,

9, 30, 8,

7, 33,

2,

Deliberating Dogface Dudes

Should Parents be Charged in School Shootings? 3D Debates #9