All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 9, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
38:19
Ep. 314 - Red Flags In The Red Flag Law The Matt Walsh Show

Republicans and Democrats are pushing for gun control now. They want something called a red flag law. What is that and is it a good idea? Also, Joe Biden embarrasses himself in hilarious fashion. And we'll talk about the Left's desire for vengeance. Date: 08-09-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on the Matt Wall Show, Republicans and Democrats are both now pushing for gun control.
They want something called a red flag law.
But what is a red flag law?
And is it a good idea?
We'll discuss that.
Also, Joe Biden embarrasses himself and the left seeks vengeance.
Talk about all that today and more on the Matt Wall Show.
So I really, I love this quote from Joe Biden.
He said at a rally yesterday, he said, we choose truth over facts.
And the crowd cheered, of course.
We choose truth over facts.
Truth over facts.
I'm not sure I quite understand the distinction.
I mean, is there such a thing as a truth that isn't a fact, or a fact that isn't a truth?
Is that, can you really separate the two?
It kind of reminds me of some great advice I got from my nutritionist once.
He said, and I'll never forget, he said, he said, he said, you gotta make sure you drink water, not H2O.
Water, not H2O.
So really, really great, great insight there from both him and Joe Biden.
But today on the show, we're going to go in a different direction.
What we're going to do is we're going to choose facts over truth.
So I'm going to switch things up a little bit just for a change of pace.
So today, truth Nah, I don't need it.
Facts, though.
We're doing truth instead of facts.
Or facts instead of truth.
I'm getting confused already.
And we'll start with a discussion about these red flag laws that people have been talking about.
I'm sure you've heard about.
So I want to discuss red flag laws, a gun control measure that is being supported by Republicans, including President Trump, who's pushing it, Democrats.
So there is a bipartisan agreement Somehow over gun control.
And I guess maybe I'm different from a lot of people, but most people say, well, we need bipartisanship.
When bipartisan agreements, that's when I get really nervous.
It's bad enough when one party or the other suggests something, when they both like it, Well, then to me it seems like, okay, that's just doubly bad if they both like it.
So we'll talk about the red flag laws and gun control.
But first, before we get into any of that, let's hear from our friends over at Noom.
You know, speaking of nutritionists, actually, it's almost like I planned this.
What if you could use one program for all your health and weight loss needs?
No more hunting for training apps, workouts, calorie trackers, meal plans.
Plus you can add a goal specialist, the community members, to keep you motivated and accountable.
So it's like having, you know, all of this and workout buddies all in one place.
So for me, Noom has been all about making healthier choices.
Keepin' my energy up so I can keep up with all the things I need to do, including the three kids.
About to be four kids.
And you know what?
It's also been, for me, about finally fitting into that adorable pair of skinny jeans.
Alright, I guess I'm just kidding about that last part.
I'm sorry for giving you the image of me in skinny jeans.
I apologize for that.
But in all seriousness, the best thing about Noom for me, as a very compulsive person, The best thing is it helps me break bad habits and form good ones.
I need a lot of help in that area.
Noom is a habit-changing solution that helps users learn to develop a new relationship with food through personalized courses based in psychology.
Noom teaches you why you do the things you do and arms you with the tools to break the bad habits, replace them with better ones.
It's not a diet.
It's a healthy and easy-to-stick-to way of life.
You don't have to change it all in one day.
All right?
Small steps make a big difference.
So sign up for your trial today at Noom.com.
That's N-O-O-M.com slash Walsh.
What do you have to lose?
Visit Noom.com slash Walsh to start your free trial today.
That's Noom.com slash Walsh.
The last weight loss program you're ever going to need.
Okay, so gun control.
You know, it looks like we may be headed into 2020, with Trump having given us no wall, no Planned Parenthood defunding, no Obamacare defunding, no fiscal responsibility, no reduction to the debt and deficit, but gun control.
Amazing.
Well, not really amazing.
It's more like sort of exactly what I expected, to be honest.
But in any case, the gun control measures being touted by Trump and other Republicans and Democrats as well, measures that may actually pass this time, those measures right now seem to be stronger background checks.
and red flag laws.
As for the stronger background checks, I'm not gonna focus on that today.
I will say that there's no indication that a background check law would have done anything
to stop the mass shootings this weekend or any other shooting that I can think of.
So I think it's a political measure with no real positive impact that I can tell.
Even CNN admitted that background checks, more background checks,
would not have stopped the shootings this weekend.
So even they're admitting that, I mean, that tells you what you need to know.
I wanna focus instead on this red flag law thing.
Josh Hammer on The Daily Wire has an excellent piece about the red flag laws
that I would recommend you go and read.
I could just read it to you because I agree 100% with what he has to say.
I won't read it because I probably should put a little more effort into this stupid show.
So let me kind of summarize.
A so-called red flag law would allow someone, a spouse, parent, sibling, police officer, possibly, depending on how the law is written, to petition the court to take gun rights away from someone who might be contemplating murder or suicide.
The idea, of course, is to get the gun away from the disturbed person before the fuse is lit, before they do whatever awful thing they might do.
There are already laws like this in place in, I don't know, I think a dozen states or more, maybe more than a dozen states.
The Washington Post ran an article yesterday saying that the results have been mixed in those other states.
But a red flag law passed by Congress would, of course, be on the federal level, so this would be a national and nationwide thing.
I understand the idea behind these laws.
It's, in and of itself, it's not a crazy idea by any means.
If you live with someone and you know they're troubled, you know they're disturbed, you know that they might be violent, this would enable you to do something about it.
And that's what everyone is saying.
We need to do something, do something.
Okay, well, then you could do something.
In fact, it appears, in fairness I should mention, that the El Paso shooter's mother A couple weeks before the shooting called the police and she was concerned about her son and the fact that he had all these guns.
But she was told that, hey, he hasn't committed a crime and he owns the guns legally.
We can't do anything.
And that was it.
Would a red flag law have prevented the El Paso shooting then?
We don't know.
Maybe.
It might have.
But we don't know.
Yet there's an obvious problem here.
And it actually has less to do with the Second Amendment than other amendments, like the Fifth.
So, though I understand the thought process behind the Red Flag Law concept, I'm very, very wary of it because it seems to throw due process out the window.
You would be depriving someone of their constitutional rights without first charging them with a crime.
That would render some—that would mean that they are guilty until proven innocent.
They're accused of being troubled and potentially violent, and they have to, what, prove that they... It's not even like they're proving a negative, like they're proving they didn't do something, which is already bad enough, because what it's guaranteed in the Constitution is that you are innocent until proven guilty.
You don't have to prove you didn't do a thing.
The government has to prove you did do it.
But in this case, you would have to prove Um, that you weren't going to, in the future, potentially do something.
You have to, so it's, it's, this is like a negative of a negative.
I mean, it's, it would be impossible to do.
We're then talking about, um, the second, fifth, and sixth amendments would all be tossed out the window.
And that seems like a problem to me.
And oh wait, the 4th Amendment too, because the 4th Amendment protects against unlawful search and seizure.
So, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th.
Why not toss the 3rd out the window too?
You know, what is that, the quartering of soldiers?
We'll start doing that as well while we're at it.
I mean, we might as well get all of the top 6.
Now look, again, I understand the idea, but the law matters.
And these amendments are law.
We can't erase them because we're scared.
I don't see how... If this does not constitute an infringement on innocence or proven guilty, due process, protections against unlawful searches and seizures, and in violation of the Second Amendment, if this does not constitute a violation of all of those principles and laws, then I don't know what would.
And the law matters.
Again, we cannot erase the law or undermine the law or put it to the side, put it on hold, because we're scared.
Now, people say, oh, so we're going to give potential mass shooters the benefit of the law, the benefit of the Constitution?
Well, yes, we do.
That's kind of the whole point.
It reminds me of a great scene in Man for All Seasons that I think I mentioned before.
That whole, well, it's a play, then film.
Um, the film, especially what I'm thinking of a classic about, about Thomas
Moore.
Um, and the whole story is painfully relevant in many ways to our situation
today, but this scene in particular has been on my mind a lot.
I'll play it for you.
Watch, watch this.
Arrest him for what?
He's dangerous!
He's a libel!
He's a spy!
Father, that man's bad!
There's no law against that!
There is God's law!
Then God can arrest him!
What are you talking?
He's God!
And go he should if he were the devil himself until he broke the law!
So, now you'd give the devil benefit of the law?
Yes, what would you do?
Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?
Yes!
I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Oh?
And when the last law was down and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast.
Man's laws, not God's.
And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Yes.
I'd give the devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
Roper's saying, hey, he's a bad guy who cares about the law.
We gotta do what we gotta do.
We gotta go after this guy, go after the bad guys, who cares about the law?
And Thomas More is explaining, if you cut down the laws to go after the bad guy, you're left exposed.
You're left with nothing there to protect you.
To protect your liberty.
And then what do you do when the wind starts blowing?
Now, as with many unconstitutional ideas, if this was enacted in a really limited way, and never went beyond those limits, and was appropriately used all the time, and was never abused, and was never exploited in general, then in that case the potential negative impact of the law, even if it is unconstitutional, would be negligible.
I mean, the government could pass unconstitutional laws all the time if we had a guarantee that it would never be exploited, no one would ever take advantage of it, there would never be any abuses.
Well, but in that case, we don't even really need any laws.
Forget about all the laws.
If we can guarantee that everyone's going to be great, it doesn't matter.
But of course, we can't guarantee that.
In fact, we can guarantee it in the other way.
It will be abused.
It will be used inappropriately.
That isn't a guess.
It is a guarantee.
We know that's how it works.
It's human nature.
It's certainly the nature of the government.
If somebody can just call up a judge and say, yeah, I think this person might be dangerous, go take away his rights, just in case.
Just in case, take away his rights.
The potential for ideologically based abuse, for abuse from personal grudges, political abuse, all of that, the potential is enormous.
Of course it is.
Here's my thing.
If someone is actually plotting a shooting, if they are actively plotting to commit a crime, well then that itself is a crime.
It is illegal to plan a mass shooting.
Now, if you're just planning it in your head, and you haven't taken any active, tangible steps, then obviously there's no way to penalize it, there's no way to prove it, because it's in your head.
But if someone is taking active steps, then it's a crime.
The shooter in, I think it was the Dayton shooter, had a hit list in high school.
Of people he wanted to kill.
Now, I'm not familiar with all the laws in Ohio, but I'm pretty sure it's illegal to have hit lists.
That's illegal.
That doesn't go under free speech.
You write a list of people I'm going to kill, you are declaring your intention to commit a crime.
So that's already illegal.
And if it's not, then let's make it illegal.
If somehow it's not illegal to make a hit list, I'm perfectly fine with making that illegal.
If you're caught with an actual hit list, Yes, you should go to jail for that.
I'm perfectly fine with that.
I think we can all agree.
And if it's somehow not illegal to actively, tangibly plan a mass shooting, then it should be.
My point is, rather than red flag laws, why not shore up those laws?
Shore up the laws prohibiting people from planning mass shootings.
If a parent goes to the cops and says, listen, I think my child might be planning to hurt people.
Well, that's a reasonable cause to investigate.
And absolutely, yes, investigate in that case.
If you discover evidence, real tangible evidence, that he's planning something, then arrest him.
If there's no evidence, not enough to bring charges, well, then you can't arrest him.
You just can't.
You don't have the evidence for it.
You don't have probable cause.
So I think if we go about it that way, then it's not perfect.
It's not going to solve all the solutions.
It's not going to solve all the problems, but nothing we do here is perfect.
As I said earlier in the week, when you're dealing with someone who wants to kill a lot of people and doesn't care about the consequences, doesn't even care if they live or die, So, when you've got someone like that out there, that's a very difficult person to deal with.
Because, as I said earlier, the thing that prevents you and me from going out and killing lots of people, the first thing that prevents us, it's not the law, it's not gun control, it's not anything.
It's just that we don't want to do that.
So you and me, we have no desire to do that.
And so that's what, I've never been in a situation Where the thing stopping me from killing someone was that it's illegal or that I couldn't get my hands on a weapon.
I don't know about you, I've never been in that situation.
Because I've never gotten to that point psychologically.
I've never had that desire ever to kill somebody.
But if that damn breaks...
Then I think the next thing, hopefully holding back the violence, is that even if you do somehow find yourself wanting to hurt someone or kill someone, God forbid, maybe the next thing preventing you is that you're worried about the consequences after the fact.
You don't want to go to jail.
You don't want to be killed in the process.
But if that damn breaks too, and now you want to do the evil thing, you don't care about your freedom or if you live or die.
Now there is just no perfect way to deal with you.
And there's nothing we can do proactively that is going to 100% stop all of those kinds of people.
Because in order for human society to function and work, we sort of rely on the fact that the vast majority of people are not crazy, violent lunatics.
That's the only way that this whole society thing works, is if 99.9999% of us are not that.
If we get to the point where even like 5% of us are in that category, there is no law in the world that's going to save society at that point.
We're screwed.
So there's no perfect solution.
But given that there's no perfect solution, that's all the more reason to respect the law and to not throw out the Constitution.
Because if you do that, looking for the perfect solution, you're still not going to find it.
And what you end up with is a situation where we still haven't stopped all the mass shootings, and now we don't even have our rights and liberties anymore.
And we have, you know, tyranny.
And that's another reason related Trump Trump sent out a tweet Today where he said that I forget the exact wording But he said that or he said guns should not be placed in the hands of people who are mentally ill Which is a is a popular thing to say but once again If we're saying, oh, well, you know, yeah, we shouldn't let people who are mentally ill buy guns, well, keep in mind, go take a look at the DSM-5 sometime, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders that the APA puts out.
And it's, you know, it's thicker than the Bible.
There are thousands of mental disorders in there.
According to the psychiatric industry, we all have a mental illness.
All of us do.
I mean, you could go to a psychiatrist today and you could be diagnosed with like seven different mental illnesses easily.
So to make this blanket statement that if somebody's mentally ill, they shouldn't have guns, you do realize that you're putting yourself then in line to lose your rights as well, because anybody can have a mental illness label slapped on them.
And even if somebody is legitimately mentally ill, Since when does that mean that we can do this sort of summary removal of their constitutional rights?
The simple fact of being mentally ill, and there are many mental illness, like I said, out there, the simple fact of being mentally ill doesn't mean that you don't have rights.
If you are mentally ill in a way where you have demonstrated that you are a danger to people, demonstrated it, not like people think maybe in the future, but you've demonstrated you are an active danger, well then, yes, something can be done there.
But then, the point isn't that you're mentally ill, the point is that you're a danger.
Even if you weren't mentally ill, but you had demonstrated that you're a danger to society, then you can be locked away.
Mental illness or not.
So these kinds of blanket statements, I'm very uncomfortable with them and where they're going to lead.
Even if they are well-intentioned, that doesn't make a difference.
Well-intentioned tyranny is still tyranny nonetheless.
All right.
I forgot about this from Joe Biden.
I was talking about the other quote from Joe Biden, truth over facts.
Then this was also good stuff for Biden.
I think it was on the same day or at least maybe back-to-back days.
So he's on a roll.
Here's something else that Joe Biden had to say at a campaign stop.
Watch this.
And the other thing we should do is we should challenge these students.
We should challenge students in these schools to have advanced placement programs in these schools.
We have this notion that somehow if you're poor, you cannot do it.
Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.
Wealthy kids.
Black kids.
Asian kids.
No, I really mean it, but think how we think about it.
Oh my goodness.
Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.
Mm.
Joe, Joe, Joe.
That's not good.
Now, Joe.
You obviously can thank your lucky stars that you're not a Republican, because if you were a Republican and you had said that, this would be headline news for like six days.
As it stands, it'll probably be in the news for a day, but poor kids are just as bright and talented as white kids.
Obviously insinuating that no white kids are poor, and poor is a race.
Or being black is synonymous with being poor.
I mean, that's not good.
Not good.
Like I said, he's a Democrat, so he'll survive it.
But that, wow.
All right.
One other thing before we get to emails, Tommy Lee, who's still alive apparently,
posted a long diatribe on social media that was a big hit with the left.
And let me read it to you.
Here's what Tommy Lee had to say.
And he was getting a lot of applause for this from the left.
It says, you Trumpsters better pray that liberals never gain control of the White House again.
Oh, I do.
Tommy, I really do.
One step ahead of you there.
Better pray the liberals never gain control of the White House again, because we're going to pay you back so effing hard for all this S. Planned Parenthood's on every damn corner.
We're going to repaint Air Force One blank hat pink and fly it over your beloved Bible belt six days a week, tossing birth control pills, condoms, and atheist literature from the cockpit.
We're going to tax your megachurches so bad that Joel Osteen will need to get a job at Chick-fil-A to pay his light bill.
Speaking of Chick-fil-A, we're buying all those and giving them to any LGBTQ person your sick cult leaders torture with conversion therapy.
Try the McPence.
It's a boiled, unseasoned chicken breast that you have to eat in the closet with your mother.
We're going to gather up all your guns, melt them down, and turn them into a gargantuan metal mountain emblazoned with the face of Hillary Clinton.
All parks will be renamed Rosa Parks ASAP.
We're replacing Confederate statues with Black Lives Matter leader and Mexican immigrants.
Every single public school renamed after a child that was kidnapped by this regime.
And after we fumigate the White House, we're repainting the whole thing rainbow.
Fox News will be taken over and turned into a family refugee shelter.
We're turning Hannity's office into a giant unisex bathroom with, okay, blah, blah, blah, blah.
This is a lot longer than I thought it was.
I was waiting to get to the end of it, and it just keeps going on and on.
Here's my point.
These are Tommy Lee's policy proposals.
Very interesting.
If he ever runs for president, this is the platform he'll run on.
Of course, it doesn't really matter what Tommy Lee has to say, but it does show, it does demonstrate one troubling thing, which is this attitude, appetite for vengeance.
I think there's a real appetite for vengeance in this country.
And when you get to that point where people just want vengeance, it's not just that they want their ideas to be made into law, that they want the culture to go in a certain direction.
It's not just that.
They want vengeance.
It's not good enough to win an election or to win an argument.
You want to punish the other side.
And I think increasingly over the months and years, we're seeing more and more of that, where people want vengeance more than anything else.
I think really more than winning the argument, where they care about vengeance even more than they care about their ideas and their philosophy, their worldview.
It's like, forget about that.
I just want to punish these people because I hate them.
That's the attitude you see there.
And even though it's coming from this frivolous and inconsequential person, it still is, I think it's indicative of a larger issue in the culture.
All right, let's go to emails.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
MattWalshow at gmail.com.
Let's see.
This is from Paul, says, I've recently started watching some of the content over the Daily Wire, typically your show and Ben's.
There are some fundamental differences between us for sure, but overall, I find your take on cultural and political issues to be spot on.
In high school, I was wrapped in a social media bubble, and rather than having my own thoughts, I just tended to say what was perceived to be popular.
My senior year marked the first time I could vote, and of course it was the highly controversial 2016 presidential election.
People on the left, like myself at the time, have been convinced that Trump could never win, and I remember a deep, gut-wrenching fear on that night, watching the results on TV.
Since then, I've spent most of my time at university working on improving myself, and one realization I've come to is that the fear I once felt was misplaced.
I'm now basically a centrist who favors more libertarian options.
And I've genuinely reconsidered just about every major point or policy I once held.
Some stayed similar, many of them have evolved.
The point of this email is to ask a question.
People often claim to believe things that they haven't actually thought of or thought out, whether it's politics, morality, religion, or whatever.
I'm certain that a large reason is that social media dissolves the immediate necessity to figure these things out and people just sort of fumble around projecting ideas that mean nothing to them.
However, there's obviously a strong value in the long term to search for answers.
I'm not religious by any stretch, and yet I still search for meaning in my own absurd way.
When you become dictator, what pathways would you promote to your people that would encourage them to pursue these issues honestly and personally?
I think I'd start by disabling the internet for an entire month every year, probably February.
Thanks, and keep up the good work.
First of all, Paul, If even half of the people in the country had the attitude that you have, and had the appetite for truth, the intellectual appetite that you have, I mean, if even half the people did, we would be living in something so different from our current situation that you would almost call it utopia.
Being willing to look objectively at your own viewpoints and change them.
That is That's something that should be commended.
Now, of course, when I'm dictator, that's not going to be allowed because you won't be able to question me.
So when you frame it that way, I mean, obviously, when I'm dictator, you'd be executed for that.
But since I'm not dictator yet, I can applaud you for that.
To answer your question, you know, back in my childhood, there was a really popular bumper sticker that said, question everything.
And you don't see those bumper stickers anymore.
It's one of the only bumper stickers I like or liked at the time.
And I think that those bumper stickers were sort of a condensed version of a quote from Descartes.
Descartes said, Now I think this is true.
a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt,
as far as possible, all things."
Now I think this is true.
We all need to challenge our preconceived notions, as you have done.
So you ask what pathways we can use to pursue the issues honestly.
Well, the pathway is one of doubt, first of all.
It's one of challenging your preconceived notions, being willing to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.
And then with that doubt, with that sense now of objectivity, looking back at your own worldview, taking sort of an outsider's perspective of your own worldview, which I think is a process that a lot of people live their whole life, and they never undergo this process, where they step outside of their own worldview, just for a moment, it just takes a moment, just for a moment, pretend you don't have, you don't believe any of the things, but just pretend you don't, just for a minute, And step outside of it, look back at your worldview from the outside in the same way that you look at everyone else's worldview.
Take that same skeptical approach to your own and inspect it for flaws.
Find the weaknesses in it.
And the whole idea here is to know why you believe the things that you believe.
I agree with you, Paul, that I think there are so many people Who quote-unquote believe any number of things and have any number of supposed views and whatever philosophy they have.
But it's not really theirs.
If you were to ask them, oh, why do you believe that?
Or why do you think that's true?
Why is that your view?
They'd be thrown for a loop.
They wouldn't be able to answer it.
They could give you a couple cliches and some talking points that they picked up on cable news or on the internet.
But other than that, they cannot really tell you why they believe it because they don't really have a reason.
They inherited it maybe from their parents.
They inherited it from the internet.
They just sort of soaked it in.
But it was not an intellectual process of analyzing Um, all of the potential options and deciding what seems true to them.
I think most people, a lot of people have never gone through that process.
And so that's, that's what it is.
You know what it starts with?
It starts where it started with you, Paul, where it seems like you at some point said to yourself, I might be wrong.
You know, it's possible that I'm wrong.
And the minute you allow yourself to think that, I mean, it's revolutionary, isn't it?
Because everyone can pay lip service to that.
They can say, oh yeah, sure, I've considered that possible.
I think most people have never considered it.
Never really considered it.
Because we are so stuck in our own heads.
We have no problem thinking that everybody else in the world could be wrong about everything.
Everyone else can be wrong.
We have no, we have no trouble with that.
But for us, well, no, I'm me.
I mean, I can't be wrong.
No way.
If we could just get out of that mindset for just a second, it's all it takes.
Then I think your whole world starts to change.
And you become a real critical thinker, like you are, Paul, and like I wish we all were.
All right, this is from Mitchell.
Okay, this is going to be my last video game email, so I'm capping it right here, but this one from Mitchell I thought was Was good.
Mostly because it agrees with me.
Mitchell says, I agree with most of what you've said in your recent episodes in regards to video games.
I would like to add some perspective from someone who was once a very avid gamer myself.
I think any gamer is a fool to deny that video games are influencing in some way.
This influence, like any media, can be good or bad.
I've met and bonded with some of my closest friends through specific games, many of whom I've never met in person, but still have the trustworthiness and companionship that comes with real friends.
I speak with these internet friends on a regular basis despite the fact that I play video games much less often than I used to do.
This is the positive influence of video games that I wish was spoken of more in the media as many tight communities have been established as a result of video games.
However, the negative of video games can be just as equally destructive as the positives are rewarding.
There were times where I found myself on multi-day binges where I would only stop playing to eat or use the restroom.
Sometimes playing at the same time.
Other times when playing, I would get far too competitive and would feel real anger and rage if I lost a multiplayer match.
It took years before I realized how unhealthy it was to be feeling these emotions and to allow video games to control my thoughts and behaviors the way that it did.
In hindsight, my years of being inside all the time playing video games was probably a factor as to why I was in the bottom 10th percentile in height and weight for most of my teenage years.
Thankfully, I fell in love with the sport of wrestling, and my desire to play video games slowly diminished.
Despite my wrestling career being over, I would still much rather be exercising than inside playing video games.
During my first year of college, my roommate was obsessed with video games, specifically Fortnite.
It was almost like looking through a time machine when I would wake up on a Saturday morning to see him playing, and then he would still be playing when I returned to the room late at night.
Microwave food boxes stacked on his desk were a clear indicator that he did not leave the room all day.
Over the year, I saw him put on a noticeable amount of weight, as he never exercised, as video games were all he did in his free time.
Being on the other side, I can clearly see the addictive nature of video games, and I believe everyone should limit the amount of video games they play.
That being said, I'm glad things worked out for me the way they did.
As through one video game in particular, I've made a very few, I've made very few close friends, a few very close friends, and that I can turn to when I need someone to talk to.
Sometimes these internet friends are the best ones to vent to, because all they can really do is listen and offer advice.
Thank you for reading.
P.S.
Today, August 9th, is my 19th birthday.
I'm not really a huge birthday guy, but it would be pretty cool if you did happen to read this on the same day that I left my mother's womb.
Well, there you go, Mitchell.
That is your birthday present.
You couldn't ask for a better one.
And I'm not going to add anything to that.
I think your personal experience there gives us some valuable insight and goes into everything I've been saying about the real problem with all forms of media The real danger with them, potentially, is the isolating potential they have and the addictive nature.
And anyone who just spends all day inside staring at a screen, I think that is psychologically unhealthy and will lead to bad things.
Probably not mass shootings, but certainly negative things of less severity, but still negative.
All right.
I'll do one more.
This is from Shane says, Hey man, I just wanted to tell you, um, you need to step it up.
How can you go by the title of a theocratic bearded fascist?
If you can only get what two minutes of media matters highlights, I just expect more plain and simple.
All I'm saying is just be better.
I guess you need more bigotry or something, uh, or, or something where some edgy outfits, you know, like a shirt that says men are not women or say some controversial things.
You know, I would give you some more examples, but that's your job.
All I'm saying is I watch you, and I want to be like, wow, that's a bigot.
But the Media Matters crew thinks you just aren't up to par with Klavan's bigotry.
By the next Highlight Reel, I want you to be more prominent, or I'll tell Ben to put someone on there who will get the job done with real bigotry, someone like Mario Lopez.
All right, you know what, Shane?
I have to defend myself here.
Because, no, in fact, someone did tabulate who was featured the most in the bigot highlight reel by Media Matters.
According to them, I was number one.
I had one second more than Klavan.
And I would also mention, and look, I don't mean to throw Andrew Klavan under the bus, but he had two or three things in that highlight reel that, I mean, were, come on, they weren't bigoted at all.
I feel like they were padding his bigot stats.
And so that's not fair to the rest of us.
Okay?
So this is an unfair... How dare you question my bigotry?
How dare you?
You can attack anything about me, but not that.
Thanks for the email, though.
And thanks everybody for watching.
Have a great weekend.
Godspeed.
If you prefer facts over feelings, if you aren't offended by the brutal truth, if you can still laugh at the nuttiness filling our national news cycle, well, tune on in to The Ben Shapiro Show, where you'll get a whole lot of that and much more.
▲
Export Selection