The Open Era

You see where the line is between a good tennis player and an Immortal in the first round match between former No. 1 Novak Djokovic and Rogerio Dutra-Silva on the Philippe-Chatrier Stade at Paris’s Roland Garros the other day.

The Brazilian, a veteran player ranked in the top 100 won some excellent points and broke the 2016 champion to even the score at 4-4 in the third set, his last chance to make a serious stand in the first round of this year’s Internationaux de France, aka French Open. Djokovic broke right back, then held serve at 15 and that was that, three sets to nought.

It was a fine match, even as seen on TV, but nothing to write home about. Anyway we would not be writing home because due to certain circumstances involving the law firm of Jauvert & Jauvert, TAS can only provide some long-distance analysis this year, but never mind the details. The question here is: is the great Serb ace back?

The question is pertinent because every tennis commentator queried by Tennis, the voice of the American tennis establishment, says defending champion Rafael Nadal will repeat, on the rational theory no one can beat him. A non-scientific survey of the international sporting press offers the same consensus. Djokovic, one of the few able to beat Nadal, has been in a prolonged slump worsened by an elbow injury requiring surgery as the season began.

With the loss in five sets by 2015 champion Stan Wawrinka to a stubborn and solid Guillermo Garcia-Lopez, Nadal has last year’s finalist out of the way. He is leading a tough and able Simone Bolelli by two sets when play is adjourned on Chatrier due to rain. The Italian is up 3-0 in the third, but these rain delays usually favor the champ, who uses them to recharge is fierce competitive drive.

And with the defection due to injury of Australia’s bad boy tennis genius Nick Kyrgios, he has one less of the up-and-coming young men to worry over. He has been in fantastic form, taking titles in Monte Carlo, Barcelona, and Rome to prepare his title defense. Like LeBron James on the basketball court, like Mike Trout (Justin Verlander, Max Scherzer, you know what I mean) on the mound, Rafa Nadal is the King. At least on clay. In tennis, surfaces matter; the maestro, Roger Federer, has only one Coupe des Mousquetaires among his 20 Slam trophies.

Moreover, Federer, the Stan-da-Man of tennis in our era, is following last year’s strategy of sitting out the clay season the fresher to be on grass and during the North American summer hard-courts. (He won at Wimbledon, not at Flushing Meadows.) And Andy Murray is out, recovering from injuries that he hopes will be gone in time for the All-England in early July.

Injuries, age; recovery, youth. The beauty of this sport derives from the way it brings out the basics of life in stark simplicity. An individual sport, in which you are upfront and alone: you step up or you do not and there is no team to back you up — or a single star like LeBron James to bail out the team. It is, pace Andre Agassi’s famous quip, not like boxing; you do have to run and you cannot hide.

It is Nadal’s to lose this year, making it likely he will get an unprecedented 11th trophy in a single major tournament. His lean and hungry challengers have fallen short in the endurance tests that are unique to the Slam circuit, or succumbed under Nadal’s clay power game, designed, and perfected for the conditions produced by this surface (limestone and crushed brick, if you ever wondered).

So, not too much suspense here, though y’never know. American men have not done very well on clay in recent years, but Jared Donaldson won his first round match in five sets, showing good form, while Frances Tiafoe and Sam Querrey both have shots at reaching the second week; unfortunately they square off in the first round so only one will (maybe) do it. (Update: it goes to Querrey in three sets; Isner, before the rain, was up two against Tiafoe’s contemporary, Noah Rubin.)

On the women’s side, Venus Williams went down in the first round and her sister goes into action on Tuesday. They have two doubles titles here, Venus has never won the Coupe Lenglen, but Serena has done it three times. The defending champ, Jelena Ostapenko, lost her first round match on an injured foot. Sloane Stephens and Madison Keys easily got through to round two. They are best friends, there was a touching scene when Miss S. beat Miss K. at the final of the U.S. Open last September, real friendship. But still it is a lonely sport.

Ken Rosewall and Rod Laver returned to Roland-Garros 50 years ago, in the inaugural major of the Open era; “Muscles” prevailed over “Rocket” in the finals. He also took the doubles with his compatriot Fred Stolle. Outside the tournament, France was in some turmoil as the cultural revolt known as the May Events continued.

These have been the subject of rather dull retrospectives and remembrances for the past months; for all their charm, you have to admit the French have a predilection for editing their own history rather in the direction of fashion, which is annoying. The fashion is that in the grand scheme of things, the May Events were a Good Thing. As far as I can tell, their main effect was that the French stopped saying “vous” and also gave up on wearing ties and hats. For the past few years, they have been destroying their own grammar, abolishing the gender declensions that charmed (and tortured) students of their language.

The remembrance that came to my mind, perhaps by unconscious association with our Memorial Day weekend when we honor those who gave all for our freedom, was one that no one, to my knowledge, mentions in all the yak-yak. I had in mind a man named Maurice Grimaud. He was the police prefect of Paris, in effect the man responsible for security, and he was heavily handicapped by the fact that his forces were overwhelmingly outnumbered by the thousands of kids who had nothing better to do than skip class, block the entrances to the university so those who wanted to learn could not get in, and instead tear up the cobble stones of the old streets of the Latin Quarter and throw them at the cops, who exercised admirable restraint.

Grimaud, who died ten years ago after a long and distinguished career as a high civil servant, had put out the word that there was to be as little rough stuff as possible, which is why the “revolutionaries” had a field day and for the next half century have been able to compare themselves to the men women and children whom you see in Les Misérables, and who were mowed down by cannon and musket when protesting for actual real reasons, such as having nought to eat. In 1968, the enactors were bourgeois kids, playing at historical drama.

Detachments of CRS and gendarmes (police under military discipline but in this case under Grimaud’s authority) reinforced the Paris uniforms. These were for the most part working class and farm-region boys, young men who had served their country in the last years of the colonial wars and were not exactly impressed with tweed-wearing students who had avoided those bitter wars and had not grown up in the poverty that was still common in those years, yet had the gall to claim they spoke for the wretched of the earth. The young men working overtime to keep the city safe while others spouted verses from Mao and Trotsky must have wondered what future elites the country was going to have, but they kept their cool and, no doubt, had a sense of humor sorely lacking in the feverish brains of bourgeois Stalinists.

In one of the “iconic” photos of the time, the student leader Dany Cohn-Bendit is seen offering a mischievous grin to a stern looking gendarme (who on closer inspection is repressing a sly smile); this has gone down in history as a symbol of the “whole” “liberation” “movement” of the ’60s.

Cohn-Bendit was, in fact, one of the less ridiculous soixante-huitards (in English: hippies, or San Francisco Democrats). He was ferociously anti-communist; the Stalinists and Trotskyists hated him. They piggy-backed the protests he and his anarchist pals started against dorm restrictions on the university campus. But he himself knew he was using sex stuff to kick start the reverse potty training he gleefully wanted to spread all over society. This is why Charles de Gaulle, who was president at the time, referred to the events aschien-lit, dog s….

Dany said they were in it to oppose “imperialism” as well as dorm restrictions, meaning the Vietnam war. What did he know about the Vietnam war? He knew enough to admit, 50 years later, that even then he knew that in Vietnam, he would have ended before a firing squad. Instead, he has a seat in the European Parliament at Strasbourg. It is not clear what they do there, but they get nice perks.

As we know, the year 1968 began with a communist rampage in Vietnam. Known as the Tet offensive, it had as its objectives to shock public opinion in the U.S. and convince our “elites” the war was unwinnable; to hold territory long enough, in such provincial capitals as Hue, to mass-murder civic and intellectual leaders, as well as policemen, who might form the backbone of resistance to their imperialism; and to destroy the Viet Cong cadres in the South, whom the Northern Stalinists did not trust. Although American and South Vietnamese forces, despite taking terrible casualties, threw back the onslaught, these objectives were achieved.

Some commemoration. Better to remember that first Open tournament on the far west side of Paris, on a street named for Gordon Bennett, an American newspaper tycoon and, no doubt, a Yankee imperialist!

The post The Open Era appeared first on The American Spectator.

Read more from The American Spectator…

At University of Virginia the White Supremacists Have Already Won

U.Va protestIf any state university is right to limit speech by members of the public on its grounds, the University of Virginia is that university. Last summer it played unwilling host to a mob of torch-bearing white supremacists shouting “Jews will not replace us!” and other repellent things.

The next day, demonstrations by more white supremacists at Lee Park in Charlottesville led to violent clashes with counterprotesters and the murder of Heather Heyer. It was a shocking episode that made news around the globe.

The reverberations are echoing still. The other day a group of recent graduates demanded that the school pay reparations to the injured. Last month U.Va. had to serve Jason Kessler, organizer of the Unite the Right rally, with a no-trespassing warning after students complained that he had threatened and bullied them, and his appearance at the Law School library caused a disturbance. Charlottesville also has rejected Kessler’s request for a second Unite the Right rally for 2018. Kessler is suing over that.

So you can understand why the university has adopted a new policy restricting speech on the grounds by persons or groups not affiliated with the school. Under the new policy, those who wish to speak on the grounds may do so only in one of nine outdoor locations. Would-be speakers, pamphleteers, and the like must request a reservation at least seven days in advance (but no more than one month in advance), and the reservations are good only for two-hour blocks Monday through Friday. An applicant cannot make more than one reservation a week. Applicants cannot use a location that is in use by somebody else at the same time.

Robert Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, told the Charlottesville Daily Progress that last restriction effectively prohibits counter-demonstrations. This might be by design, given the melees that erupted last August. U.Va. president Teresa Sullivan says the new rules were made for safety’s sake.

But again, if any public university is right to limit speech by outsiders, U.Va. is that university. There’s just one thing: No public university is right to do so. Especially not U.Va..

Some certainly claim the authority to do so. U.Va. has carefully tailored its new restrictions to thread the constitutional needle. The Supreme Court forbids content-based restrictions on speech but allows restrictions on its time, place, and manner — so U.Va.’s policy announcement repeats the phrase “time, place, and manner” like a mantra. And the policy is, on its face, neutral: It will apply equally to the NAACP and the Klan, to abortion-rights groups and abortion opponents, and so on.

But it is not neutral on the broader question of speech generally: It comes down squarely in favor of limiting expressive activity by members of the public. It will reduce the opportunities for citizens to express themselves on what is, after all, public property.

In fact, it already has. When U.Va. grad Bruce Kothmann learned of the policy, he went to the Rotunda and read a Bible verse on the steps. When he returned the next day to read the same verses he reads each week at synagogue (Kothmann is Jewish), the police asked him to leave. The Rotunda, which U.Va. calls the architectural and academic heart of the university community, is now off-limits to the rest of the community: It is excluded from the list of designated speech zones for outsiders.

That means events such as the March 14 demonstration in support of gun control on the U.Va. Lawn would have to ban participation by outsiders. “U.Va. students, faculty, staff, and members of the local community participated in the National School Walkout exactly one month after the deadly attack at Marjory Stoneman High School in Florida,” U.Va.’s news service reported at the time. So much for solidarity.

The Rotunda was designed by Thomas Jefferson, who founded the school. The university’s web page devoted to the building includes a quote, famous to all U.Va. students and faculty, by Jefferson about U.Va.: “This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”

U.Va. even produces a publication “focused on showcasing the best of the University of Virginia” — called “Illimitable.”

But the school has now decided the freedom of the human mind should have some limits after all, and that certain errors — and, for that matter, many great truths — should be tolerated only within strictly confined boundaries.

The irony is thicker than wet cement. U.Va.’s new policy is, literally, reactionary: It has come about in reaction to last summer’s outrage. That outrage was perpetrated by a group of hooligans who reject tolerance, individual rights, personal freedom, and other core tenets of Enlightenment liberalism.

The greatest rebuke to such backward notions would involve strengthening the commitment to those values. Instead, the rise of right-wing illiberalism has fueled illiberalism on the left. The two feed off each other — and the values of classical liberalism go begging.

If any university should be standing up for those Jeffersonian values now, U.Va. is that university. Instead, it has chosen to back away from them.

Read more from Reason.com…

Will “Rules and Regulations” Save Us?

Opinion

Open Carry
Personal, individual responsibility will save this civilization. Individual citizens boldly claiming their own magnificence

Ft Collins, CO –-(Ammoland.com)- “America will collapse financially, chasing unceasing rules and regulations designed to save defenseless citizens from harm.” ~ Bin Laden

As a panicked and short-sighted nation, we’re hurriedly composing endless reams of new, confusing, and hopelessly inconvenient “rules” with regard to school security, most of it “theater” and little else

Endless billions of taxpayer dollars are being haphazardly thrown at this issue. More cameras and monitors (that no one is watching), more restrictions on entry and exit, more delays, more confusion, more inconvenience, etc

But wait!

How do we similarly “protect” buses, sports stadiums, playgrounds, day-care centers, parking lots, movie theaters, cruise ships, et al?

With all this growing, high-tech “security” (which is mostly wishful thinking), is anyone really any “safer” than before?

Look at the UK, where cameras have been installed on virtually every single street corner in the entire country, yet where violent crime is at an all-time high, and getting worse by the day.

Bin Laden made a watertight argument.

What will work without fail, and the only strategy that has any chance of working, is: “Individual Security”

Teachers and school officials need to go armed. Citizens need to go armed. “Security” needs to be thought of as an intensely, exclusively personal issue.

The entire false, failed philosophy of “Learned Helplessness,” endlessly promoted by leftists, needs to be majestically, audaciously thrown in the trash.

“Institutional Security” is a contraction of terms.

Personal, individual responsibility will save this civilization. Individual citizens boldly claiming their own magnificence.

That will save us. Nothing else will!

/John

Defense Training International, Inc

About John Farnam & Defense Training International, Inc
As a defensive weapons and tactics instructor John Farnam will urge you, based on your own beliefs, to make up your mind in advance as to what you would do when faced with an imminent lethal threat. You should, of course, also decide what preparations you should make in advance if any. Defense Training International wants to make sure that their students fully understand the physical, legal, psychological, and societal consequences of their actions or in-actions.

It is our duty to make you aware of certain unpleasant physical realities intrinsic to the Planet Earth. Mr. Farnam is happy to be your counselor and advisor. Visit: www.defense-training.com

The post Will “Rules and Regulations” Save Us? appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

Read more from AmmoLand…

Purges on Campus

Readers of this column know well that much space has been reserved in order to bring to the public’s attention two immense industries that otherwise aren’t typically recognized as such.  They are the Academic-Industrial-Complex (AIC) and the Racism-Industrial-Complex (RIC).

Readers also know that the AIC, for all of its massiveness, is actually but a facet of the vastly larger RIC.  Some recent examples from the world of Higher Education make this abundantly, painfully clear.

[1] Duke University just dropped Professor Evan Charney.  His defenders, particularly his student defenders, suspect that Charney, a white man, was let go because the manner in which he critically engages his students led some to charge him with making his classroom into an “unsafe space” for minority students.

In a letter published by more than 100 of Charney’s students in The Duke Chronicle, some of Charney’s students, including his international students, defended him against the charge that “his class reproduces systems and structures of inequality involving notions of class, privilege and power.”  Charney, the letter reads, has a “teaching style” that is “wonderfully thought-provoking and challenging.  His students’ ideas are vetted and sharpened through rigorous debate and discussion” on a range of issues, and everyone is made to feel uncomfortable through exposure to “viewpoints that conflict with how they think and what they value.”

Charney is known by his students for his “Socratic format,” a style that leaves no “thought…unexamined” or “assertion…unchecked.”

At one point—perhaps this was the final trigger to have broken the leftist juggernaut’s back—Professor Charney used a whole class period to critically interrogate “the motivations and tactics” of students who staged a weeklong sit-in over a racially-oriented event that occurred in 2016.  He “challenged” students to “argue cogently in favor of or against the movement,” an approach that “put the burden on protesters in his class to justify their actions [.]”

Though Charney’s publications include analyzes of “liberal bias,” neither he nor his students are in any obvious way “conservative.”  At least this is the most reasonable conclusion to draw from looking at the views expressed in the student letter to the Chronicle and a listing of some of the classes that Charney typically teaches: While his area of expertise is “genomics and genetics,” specifically “behavioral genetics,” Charney regularly taught a seminar on “Global Inequality research.” 

In fact, that Charney would even take up class time to discuss issues that seem to fall well beyond the jurisdiction of his courses suggests that his instincts as a professor are more at home among the ideology of the colleagues and students who favor his termination than they are the approach to teaching traditionally found among more conservative professoriate.

[2] Yet even faculty who have spent their lives on the left are discovering that they are not safe.  Brett Weinstein is a left-leaning professor at Evergreen State College in Washington.  When he objected to a “Day of Absence,” an event during which whites would avoid campus while non-whites, or “POC” (People of Color), hold workshops, both he and his students were subjected to harassment and intimidation.  When campus police informed Weinstein that they could not protect him, he was forced to hold class off-campus at a park.

Administrators decided this year that in place of a Day of Absence, Evergreen would instead hold an “equity symposium.” Student activists, however, resolved to hold their event despite the school’s change of plans. The theme of this year’s affair is, “Deinstitutionalize/Decolonize.” According to the RSVP page:

“The mission of this event is to bring POC together in order to create a reclamation of space and move forward into the future.  In reaction to [the] institution’s consistent disregard for our safety, we are operating independently of the college. This is a day for us, by us.”

If whites insist upon attending, they will be directed toward “antiracist workshops.”

[3] The University of Michigan is among over 230 colleges and universities nationwide with a “Bias Response Team.” Yet it is among “the most established,” according to The Detroit News.  Whether the “bias” is “intentional or unintentional,” if team members determine that speech contains unacceptable bias, it exacts disciplinary action that ranges from requiring “restorative justice” to “individualized education” to “unconscious bias training.”  

Fortunately, the University of Michigan is now on the receiving end of a lawsuit. 

According to the complaint, such is the restrictive nature of the University’s interpretation of “bullying,” “harassment,” and “bias” that it threatens “staggering amounts of protected speech and expression.”

Nichole Neilly, whose Japanese-American parents met in an internment camp during World War II, is especially sensitive to infringements of liberty.  She is the head of “Speech First.”  The University’s current system, given that it incentivizes members of the school community to anonymously blow the whistle on others, “is not workable,” Neilly says. “Students should be able to express themselves without fear of retribution.”

Speech First found that in just this past year, UM investigated over 150 incidents of alleged “bias.”

Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation says of speech restrictions of the sort found at UM that they are “Draconian” and reminiscent of East Germany and Orwell’s 1984.

[4] At Georgetown University, left-wing student activists are laboring to prevent campus police from being armed.  If police are armed, the students maintain, minority students will be threatened.

On a Facebook post, “Georgetown United Against Police Aggression” self-identifies as “a group of students concerned about GUPD’s impact on Georgetown’s communities of color.” The group shares a letter that it issued to the school’s president urging him “to not arm GUPD [.]”

Among the 30 or so signatories to the letter are such groups as: African Society of Georgetown; Black Student Alliance; Asian Pacific Islander Leadership Forum; Casa Latina; GU Women of Color; Georgetown University College Democrats; Georgetown Young Democratic Socialists; Hoyas for Immigration Rights; Muslim Students Association; Native American Student Council; Queer People of Color; and Students for Justice in Palestine.

The Racism-Industrial-Complex knows no bounds, but academia is a bastion of it. Of course, RIC has facilitated the Academic-Industrial-Complex as well.

Anyone who can still doubt this is either naïve or in denial.   

Read more from Front Page Magazine…

Parkland Impact On Gun Control? A Bunch Of Nothing

While the Parkland kids got invited to Hollywood premiers and pretty much every prime time news slot the anti-gun media could manufacture for them, there still remained a question about just how much they actually accomplished. It’s a fair question.

Florida enacted some gun control measures in the immediate aftermath of Parkland, so there’s that, but nothing has passed nationally. Yet that’s not the only measure of their potential effectiveness, right?

Have they been effective in other ways?

It doesn’t look like it.

The Parkland, Florida, school massacre has had little lasting impact on U.S. views on gun control, three months after the shooting deaths of 17 people propelled a national movement by some student survivors, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Wednesday.

While U.S. public support for more gun control measures has grown slowly but steadily over the years, it typically spikes immediately after the mass shootings that have become part of the U.S. landscape, then falls back to pre-massacre levels within a few months.

The poll https://bit.ly/2GEdYkl found that 69 percent of American adults supported strong or moderate regulations or restrictions for firearms, down from 75 percent in late March, when the first poll was conducted following the Valentine’s Day shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. The new poll numbers are virtually unchanged from pre-Parkland levels.

The latest poll surveyed 3,458 adults from May 5 to 17. That was before the May 18 shooting in Texas, at Santa Fe High School near Houston, that killed 10 people.

Of course, the Reuters poll shows a similar trend to the Gallup poll we mentioned earlier today, namely that support for gun control is dropping. Their numbers are very different, but the overall point remains. Support for gun control is typically short-lived in the wake of an attack.

The Parkland kids tried to change that, of course, and the media sure as hell helped them along, but in the end, Americans aren’t crazy about rights being curtailed when they’re not hopped up on emotion.

It doesn’t help their case that they’ve been pushing a whole list of gun control items and then Santa Fe happened, which undermined everything. While another school attack would, theoretically, help their cause, the fact that literally none of the proposals being typically discussed would have done a damn thing to have prevented the attack that killed 10 and left 10 wounded, but was stopped by a couple of good guys with guns.

You know, the very same thing folks like us say stop attacks?

David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez are pushing for whatever, but at the end of the day, they’re just another couple of anti-gun activists with a chip on their shoulder who think they should be taken more seriously than they are despite the near constant barrage of nonsense they spew.  They offer nothing new except their victimhood, which only goes so far, even with people inclined to take such things into account.

At the end of the day, they’re nothing really new. They’re just people who don’t understand the Constitution who want to take guns away from the law-abiding because they labor under the false belief that it will make things better.

No wonder little has come of it.

The post Parkland Impact On Gun Control? A Bunch Of Nothing appeared first on Bearing Arms.

Read more from Bearing Arm…

House GOP Seeks Last-Ditch Immigration Agreement Amid Rebellion

House Republican leaders are making a last-ditch effort to work out an agreement on immigration legislation as GOP hardliners conceded Tuesday that moderates would otherwise be able to force a vote on bipartisan proposals the conservatives oppose.

Representative Dennis Ross of Florida, a member of the Republican vote-counting team, said he was asked by party leaders to delay signing a petition that — with support from virtually all Democrats and a few dozen Republicans — would force Speaker Paul Ryan to hold votes on four immigration bills that he doesn’t want to bring to the floor.

{snip}

House Freedom Caucus leader Mark Meadows acknowledged that he expects moderate Republicans and Democrats can gather enough signatures to force a vote on the bipartisan proposals, including one to grant a citizenship path to young undocumented immigrants.

“They’ll get to 218” signatures, a majority of House members, said Meadows of North Carolina.

Still, he said that if the House passes a bill to protect the young immigrants known as dreamers, “it’s not going to become law so I’m not sitting here with fear and trembling.”

{snip}

Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, a Florida Republican who has signed the petition, expressed confidence that it’ll succeed.

“There’s no doubt that there are enough Republicans who will sign on,” he said in an interview. “This one’s done to bring out four different diverse solutions. It was done in a way not to be disruptive or for political grandstanding.”

Conservative House Republicans are seeking an immediate vote instead on a bill that would put new restrictions on legal immigration, sponsored by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia. Last week, members of the Freedom Caucus blocked a GOP farm bill on the House floor because they didn’t trust assurances from GOP leaders that the Goodlatte measure would get a vote.

Regarding the Freedom Caucus, Ross said, “I’m tired of the tail wagging the dog.” He said he had been told that GOP leaders are trying to negotiate an immigration bill with Democrats.

{snip}

The post House GOP Seeks Last-Ditch Immigration Agreement Amid Rebellion appeared first on American Renaissance.

Read more from American Renaissance…

Gallup Shows Support For Gun Control Drops Over Time

Immediately after Parkland, support for gun control was huge. It seemed like everyone wanted new gun control measures to be put in place. Oh, maybe not your average Bearing Arms reader, mind you, but in the population as a whole? It was big.

Many of us knew that all we needed to do was hold on for a while. It always seemed that historically, gun control rhetoric gained support initially after some kind of attack, then dropped back down after a time. People apparently jumped on the gun control bandwagon based on emotion, but then soon jump back off because they realize they were being dumb.

At least, that’s what it sure looked like. It seems that Gallup agrees.

Americans’ support for tougher gun laws hit a 25-year high in March. In the wake of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in a March Gallup poll, 67% of Americans indicated their support for tougher restrictions on guns. This was the highest level of support for more stringent gun laws in the U.S. since 1993. Americans’ support for tougher gun laws has generally trended up since the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, and has now returned to levels last seen prior to 2000.

In other words, people aren’t jumping up and down for gun control anymore.

It’s not really surprising, though, when you think about it. After something horrible, people are looking for answers, for something that will make damn sure nothing like this happens again. I get it. This is a reaction that I think is probably pretty normal. Even ardent Second Amendment supporters can start to rethink their positions for a brief time.

But in the end, there’s the reality that the problem wasn’t the tool used in the shooting, but the tool using it in the first place. Vehicle attacks like the one recently in Toronto illustrate just how the problem rests in the people, not the weapon (it should be noted that the Toronto van attack had more casualties than the Santa Fe High School shooting).

People settle down, let things simmer, then realize that guns aren’t really the problem, so their minds change on gun control.

That means there’s a brief window for lawmakers to push through anti-gun bills through legislatures with anything approaching public support. That’s what happened down in Florida, when they passed a law making it illegal to sell a firearm of any kind to anyone under 21, not just the handguns as the law previously stipulated.

Unfortunately, though, lawmakers have a problem. They may pass those laws with public support, but by the time re-election comes around, that same public isn’t in favor of those laws. That previous support won’t necessarily protect them from the angry mob known as the electorate, especially when pro-gun activists are very good at mobilizing to oust traitorous politicians who betray their trust. Having the support of the public in one instance doesn’t insulate you later.

What lawmakers need to understand is what we’re seeing from Gallup. Just weather the storm and it will end. Despite the media push after Parkland, it too has failed to create real, lasting support for anti-gun extremism. That’s a very good thing.

The post Gallup Shows Support For Gun Control Drops Over Time appeared first on Bearing Arms.

Read more from Bearing Arm…

MD cop killed responding to possible burglary – Four ‘armed and dangerous’ suspects still at large, officials say

This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

UPDATE, 8:10 p.m. EST – A police officer died Monday while responding to a possible burglary.

Officials have since said there are four possible suspects at large who are believed to be “armed and dangerous.”

It was initially reported the officer was fatally shot. It was later learned that the officer might have been run over by a vehicle based on eyewitness accounts of the incident. It’s unclear whether or not the officer died because of the gunshot, being run over or a combination of both. The police officer has not been identified.

Baltimore County Police Cpl. Shawn Vinson said the officer, who has been referred to as a female, was responding to a possible burglary call around 2 p.m. when the incident took place. She was taken to MedStar Franklin Square Medical Center and died around 2:50 p.m., Vinson said.

“We cannot confirm her injuries right now. We probably won’t know for sure until an autopsy is performed,” Vinson said, KCRA reported.

A Maryland police officer was fatally shot Monday while responding to a call and investigating suspicious activity, and the suspected shooter is armed and still at large, officials said Monday afternoon.

The Baltimore County Police Department “received a call for a suspicious vehicle in the unit-block of Linwen Way, 21136. An officer has been injured and taken to a local hospital. Continue to searching for at least one armed suspect,” Baltimore County Public Safety tweeted Monday.

Area schools would not be released at regular times and are on “alert status” due to increased police activity, BACO Public Safety said.

“Perry Hall Elem, 7 Oaks Elem and Gunpowder Elem are being held over on alert status due to active police activity in the area. These schools WILL NOT be dismissed at this time. DO NOT attempt to respond to the school. Call school administrators for further instructions,” the department tweeted.

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan tweeted out his condolences Monday.

“We are deeply saddened to learn of the passing of a Baltimore County Police Officer after she was shot in the line of duty today. Our prayers go out to this brave officer’s family, [Baltimore County Police and Fire] and the Baltimore County community,” he wrote.

There are traffic delays and restrictions in the area as police continue to search for the armed suspect and investigate the incident.

The officer’s identity is not known at this time, nor where the officer was shot.

Read more from American Military News…

AFP Urges House to Pass Dodd-Frank Reform

Arlington, Va. – Americans for Prosperity today called on House lawmakers to pass the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act (S.2155), providing relief to regional and community banks suffering under the burdensome regulations of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (H.R. 4173). Ahead of an expected vote Tuesday, AFP is announcing it will be scoring the legislation on its congressional scorecard and is urging House lawmakers to vote “Yes”.

VIEW THE KEY VOTE ALERT HERE

In a key vote letter sent to lawmakers Monday, AFP called on the House to pass the bipartisan bill crafted by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID) easing federal restrictions on community banks and reducing the cost of regulatory compliance.

AFP Chief Government Affairs Officer Brent Gardner issued the following statement:

“Businesses and communities have suffered too long under harmful and counterproductive Obama-era financial restrictions. The consequences can be seen on Main Streets across the country as Dodd-Frank created barriers to the American Dream for millions of families and businesses.

“Thanks to the efforts of Chairman Crapo, House leadership and House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling, Republicans and Democrats now have an opportunity to work together to provide relief for the hardworking men and women who are the foundation of their vibrant communities.

“We urge House members to vote ‘yes’ on Dodd-Frank repeal and look forward to supporting Chairman Hensarling in his effort to advance additional House-passed financial reforms through the Senate.”

Background:

Since the passage of the 2,300-page Dodd- Frank law in 2010, AFP has advocated for an end to harmful regulations that force small financial institutions out of business due to increased compliance and burden consumers with higher costs.

In 2017, AFP championed Chairman Jeb Hensarling’s Financial Choice Act 2.0 and in 2018 worked with lawmakers in the House and Senate to advance meaningful bipartisan reform.

AFP Praises House Resolve to Pass Dodd-Frank Reform (5/9/2018)

AFP Commends Chairman Hensarling for Commitment to Repealing Dodd-Frank’s Harmful Regulations Reform (5/2/2018)

AFP Commends Senate for Passing Dodd-Frank Relief Legislation (3/14/18)

AFP Issues Letter of Support for Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act (3/5/2018)

AFP Issues Letter of Support for Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act (3/5/2018)

AFP Pens Letter in Support of CHOICE Act (6/27/2017)

AFP Commends House Passage of Financial CHOICE Act 2.0 (6/9/2017)

AFP Talks Financial CHOICE Act with Rep. Jeb Hensarling (6/7/2017)

AFP Issues Coalition Letter of Support for the Financial CHOICE Act (4/26/2017)

Where Have All the Small Banks Gone? (8/25/2016)

For further information or to set up an interview, please send an email to [email protected].

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) exists to recruit, educate, and mobilize citizens in support of the policies and goals of a free society at the local, state, and federal level, helping every American live their dream – especially the least fortunate. AFP has more than 3.2 million activists across the nation, a local infrastructure that includes 36 state chapters, and has received financial support from more than 100,000 Americans in all 50 states. For more information, visit www.AmericansForProsperity.org

###

The post AFP Urges House to Pass Dodd-Frank Reform appeared first on Americans for Prosperity.

Read more from Americans for Prosperity…

Study: Removing flame retardants from nap mats may lower…

A new report reveals that taking flame retardants out of children’s nap mats could significantly lower exposure to harmful chemicals. That’s a breath of fresh air for a Connecticut group that’s long pushed for more restrictions on these products.

Read more from Safe Levels…