President Arthur Brooks discusses the importance of productive conversations across ideological lines and the right to hold different opinions through examining NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem.
But many of those so-called homes of higher learning are bowing to censorship. Free speech advocates warn the growing movement to shut down certain speakers and opinions on college campuses threatens First Amendment rights. Berkeley was ripped up in …
User comments posted on this website are the sole views and opinions of the comment writer and are not representative of Guardian Media Limited or its staff. Guardian Media Limited accepts no liability and will not be held accountable for user comments …
Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- Social justice busybodies obsessed with how other people live their lives often portray the success of their causes as a matter of destiny.
“The young people will win,” insists one youthful gun control advocate, falsely portraying his personal crusade as a generational mandate. Yet recent events have demonstrated that bedrock American values – including support for the Second Amendment – tend to outlast moments of high emotion that are increasingly relied upon by political opportunists to advance their agenda.
Given the chance to collect their thoughts, most Americans instinctively revert to freedom.
We recently commented on this point with reference to poll numbers that show a familiar pattern of gun control support spiking in the immediate aftermath of an infamous firearm-related crime, only to taper off as the punditry aims its fury in another direction or overplays its hand and is forced to regroup.
Since then, additional evidence has arisen to complicate the media’s breathless narrative that “the ground is shifting on gun control.”
First, more recent poll numbers underscore the fact that Americans, including young Americans, recognize that the country has far more pressing problems than rushing to enact unproven gun control measures.
The Associated Press and MTV, for example, teamed up this year to measure the “Youth Political Pulse,” with surveys conducted from late February to early March (when the news cycle was focused on the terrible crime at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School) and again from late April to early May. Between the survey periods, the percentage of respondents aged 15 to 34 who identified firearm-related issues as their highest concern for the country fell 15 points, from 21% to 6%. During the earlier survey period, the gun issue was the highest concern. In the latter period, it was tied for the sixth most common response, behind the economy, social inequality, and even threat of nuclear war.
Moreover, a week after a similar crime in Santa Fe, Texas on May 18, support for gun control in the Lone Star State had actually dropped 6% since April, as measured by Quinnipiac University polling. Support for stricter gun laws was also lower in the May sample among those aged 18 to 34 than among those 65 or older, another inversion of the conventional wisdom that youth are destined to change the national debate on this question.
A Quinnipiac analyst opined: “The tragedy at the Santa Fe school south of Houston changed few opinions among Texas voters about gun control. Support for gun control in general is down slightly, while support for background checks for all gun buyers is virtually unchanged.”
Adding to the gun control advocates’ woes were the release of data and studies that contradicted their claims of a rising epidemic of school shootings fueled by easy access to so-called “assault weapons.”
The website The74Million.org, which describes itself as a “non-profit, non-partisan news site covering education in America,” published a lengthy interview in May with Criminologist Nadine Connell of the University of Texas at Dallas, who’s compiling a database of every school shooting since 1990. The piece underscored Connell’s findings that “school shootings are extremely rare” and that allowing them to drive policy isn’t “always the most productive” way to keep students safe.
Connell indicated that “from the perspective of policymaking,” the media’s current reporting on school shootings can be misleading.
“[A]s of now,” she said, “we don’t think there is an increase in the number of incidents as much as there is an increase in the attention to the incidents.” She also stressed that “the number of rampage-like incidents remains extremely low, and they are a relatively small subsection of the shootings we are analyzing.” Schools, Connell said, “are the safest they’ve ever been.”
While Connell indicated in the interview that she is not a fan of arming teachers, she also declined to put gun control at the center of the debate. When asked what would be the “most effective method to stop the lion’s share of the problem,” she emphasized “whole-school-centered approaches to improve climate, clarify expectations, and support teachers and administrators in creating a community of trust and support.” She also noted that the “environmental design” of schools can play an important role in keeping kids safe without making them feel like they are under siege.
Can Mass Shootings be Stopped?
Perhaps more even more ironic was a May 22 report from the Rockefeller Institute that was funded by a multi-state “Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium” representing a who’s-who of Northeastern antigun jurisdictions. Entitled “Can Mass Shootings be Stopped?” the report broadly focuses on mass shootings in general, rather than on school-specific events.
Like Connell, however, the authors mentioned media distortion as an impediment to understanding the true nature of the problem.
“Mass shootings, and those that are particularly lethal, are amplified by the news cycle, making them appear more commonplace when they are, in fact, statistically rare,” they stated. They also characterized the media’s coverage of the events as “unbalanced,” potentially leading the public to “hold disproportional attitudes about the events themselves.”
The report made the points that mass shootings are not limited to the U.S. but “occur in countries worldwide,” are nearly three times more likely to be perpetrated with handguns than with “assault weapons,” and occur more frequently in workplaces than in schools. Also likely to displease its funders is the report’s observation that gun control laws, whether passed in the immediate wake of a mass shooting or kept on the books for decades “often are not enforced, leading them to be ineffective at preventing the next mass shooting.” But perhaps most damning of all was the authors’ admonition that “[k]nee-jerk reactions rooted in emotion will not solve the problem.”
Yet that is exactly how gun control advocates operate and what they offer. Whatever can be said about the youthful gun control activists who have captured so much of the media’s attention lately, they are among the prime purveyors of emotionalism and hyperbole. And far from bringing innovative new thinking to the issue, their main “solution” is the tired notion of banning guns that are underrepresented in rampage gun crimes and remain highly popular among the law-abiding. Instead of treating every word out of their mouths as some new game-changing revelation, their gun control seniors should remind them that “assault weapon” bans had until recently been de-emphasized as an embarrassment to the movement and too obvious of its prohibitory intent.
Unlike the latest gun control hashtag or self-congratulatory Hollywood vanity project, the National Rifle Association has been around since 1871. We’ve seen movements come, and we’ve seen movements go. And while we never doubt the sincerity of our opposition in their desire to eradicate the right to keep and bear arms, we’re not about to change our values or objectives just because some media talking heads or youth-obsessed celebrities begin making demands or throwing around half-baked claims.
Fortunately, the American commitment to freedom also remains strong and resilient. And freedom-loving Americans know they have an ally in the NRA.
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
The post American Values Prove Stubbornly Resistant to Gun Control Opportunism appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
Fox News host Sean Hannity had a surprising reaction to the controversy around MSNBC host Joy Reid and her past blog posts – he says she deserves a second chance.
Here’s Hannity’s statement
The talk radio and cable news opinion host posted a statement about Reid on his website Friday after recent revelations from her controversial blog website surfaced.
“Over the last few days the conversation surrounding the comments made by TV personalities has dominated the news cycle,” Hannity said in the statement. “We have covered them as well, going over previous tweets, statements and on air opinions. One of these individuals, MSNBC’s Joy Reid, has now apologized for her previous blogs and commentary.”
“It’s good to see Joy (who is no fan of mine) starting to take responsibility for her past remarks,” he continued. “My suggestion is that she follows up with the groups and people who she offended, and learn from all of this. Her apology should be accepted, and she should be given a chance to make it right, and not fired.”
“We have all fallen short”
“Someone needs to take the lead in cable news and stop the ‘crush, fire them, and destroy hosts you may disagree with’ environment,” Hannity added. “I guess as the number one rated host in cable, I’ll start.”
“I am grateful for this microphone and the platform given to me everyday by my audience,” he said. “I am a believer in the freedom of speech for all Americans. I am also a believer in second chances.”
“And as someone who believes in forgiveness,” he concluded, “I have to say, we have all fallen short.”
Crush, fire and destroy
Hannity was referring to the campaign mounted by left-wing organizations to drive his advertisers away over various stories they painted as controversial. One such controversy exploded when Hannity pressed on with a false story about the death of DNC staffer Seth Rich – Fox News later retracted the story and the family has since sued the news network.
Here’s the CNN news video about the story:
Grizzly bears are probably the baddest of the bears, at least in most of North America. While they’re often not what some people like to think, they’re still fairly aggressive, especially when compared to black bears, and will definitely put a hurting on your weekend plans if you screw around with them. However, they’ve also been a threatened species for some time.
However, the population of grizzly bears has been rebounding. It’s rebounding so well that Wyoming will host the first legal grizzly hunt since 1975.
After exceeding recovery expectations while protected by the Endangered Species Act, U.S. Fish & Wildlife officials in Wyoming approved the first grizzly bear hunt to take place in the lower 48 states since 1975.
WGFD has been floating the idea around for several months, and has even hosted a number of public meetings across the state to give folks an opportunity for their opinions to be heard on the proposed 2018 Wyoming grizzly bear hunt.
In the end, the commission unanimously voted 7-0, re-wrote and implemented a final set of regulations, and approved the grizzly bear hunt for this fall.
WGFD highlighted a number of things hunters need to know about the hunt:
- The Department shall generate grizzly bear license issuance lists for hunt areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Separate license issuance lists shall be generated based on the residency of applicants for a grizzly bear license. A computer random number selection shall be utilized to determine name placement on the grizzly bear license issuance lists. When a hunting opportunity exists for hunt areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6, licenses shall be issued to individuals on the license issuance lists for a specified ten (10) day hunting period as designated and at the direction of the Department. The Department shall issue at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the available licenses to residents prior to issuing a nonresident license. Licenses shall be issued until mortality limits are reached or until the close of the season.
- The application period for the grizzly bear license issuance lists and limited quota drawing shall be July 2, 2018 through July 16, 2018. Completed applications shall only be submitted through the Department Electronic Licensing Service.
- After the drawings for the grizzly bear license issuance lists are completed, the Department shall contact applicants in the order of their ranking on the lists and advise them of the possible opportunity to hunt grizzly bears. The Department shall continue to contact applicants on the lists until ten (10) applicants accept the possible opportunity to hunt grizzly bears.
- Applicants on the grizzly bear license issuance list who are offered and accept an opportunity to participate in the grizzly bear hunt shall be advised of a specified ten (10) day hunting period during which their license shall be valid. Licenses to hunt grizzly bears in hunt areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 shall be valid for a single ten (10) day hunt period as specified by the Department and shall not be subject to renewal or hunt period extension.
These are just a few of the listed regulations on the WGFD website, so please take the time to read through all of them at your convenience.
For hunters, this is good news.
Contrary to what animal rights activists like to think, this is good news for the grizzly bear as well. Hunters are typically conservationists. While they like to eat what they kill, as a general rule, they also want to hunt these species for ages to come. They want these populations to be large and healthy, but not so large they endanger humans.
It sounds like the grizzly population is doing well and, in time, will do even better.
The post Wyoming Approves First Grizzly Hunt In Over 40 Years appeared first on Bearing Arms.
Multiple regional news outlets and individuals on social media have reported that the Zimbabwe High Court has lifted the RBZ ban against cryptocurrency activities … not censor any comment content based on politics or personal opinions.
Former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick has claimed that NFL owners colluded to keep him out of the league because of his social justice protests during the national anthem.
A new report from Yahoo Sports that the league polled fans about whether they thought he should be on a team could be used to bolster that claim.
What’s the story?
In 2017, several months into Kaepernick’s free agency, the NFL hired The Glover Park Group, a Washington consulting firm, to conduct a poll of fan attitudes about some hot-button issues, including Kaepernick. From Yahoo Sports’ Charles Robinson:
The data sought by the NFL included fan attitudes about a few high-profile league concerns, including domestic violence, gambling, player protests and player safety. Sources noted that Kaepernick was the only player singled out in the research for specific opinions, which were then compiled and sent to various league officials, including commissioner Roger Goodell and several other high-ranking executives.
The portion of the survey that addressed Kaepernick asked fans whether they believed Kaepernick should be signed, and whether they believed he was unsigned due to his protests, on-field performance, or other reasons.
What did the poll find?
Yahoo Sports’ sources did not divulge the specific data from the poll, but did reveal that there were clear dividing lines separating demographics.
Specifically, divisions in which a majority of white NFL fans supported disciplining players for not standing for the anthem versus a majority of the NFL’s African-American and Latino fans who didn’t. The sources also said a majority of Republican NFL fans supported the disciplining of players versus a majority of Democrats who didn’t, and a majority of Baby Boomer NFL fans significantly supported discipline more than both Generation Xers and Millennials.
Why does this matter?
The NFL is in the midst of dealing with a collusion grievance filed by Kaepernick against the NFL owners. Kaepernick believes owners conspired to keep him out of the league for political reasons.
That grievance has included depositions of owners, forcing them to turn over phone and email records related to Kaepernick.
Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio reported earlier this week that documents from the depositions reveal that teams viewed Kaepernick as not just good enough to be on a team, but to be a starting quarterback.
Outside contributors’ opinions and analysis of the most important issues in politics, science, and culture. Ten years ago, when a divided Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment includes a right to individual …
As the Taliban’s fight against Afghan forces continues, and after the group’s threat to launch more attacks, some experts offer divided opinions on whether Kabul should hold to its peace offer and wait for a response from the insurgent group. In February, Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani offered unconditional peace talks to the Taliban, in addition to a chance to recognize the group as a legitimate political party.