Whenever a gun tragedy happens in the United States, it seems like there are two sides: One that argues against Second Amendment protections, and one that argues for them. It seems simple enough, but what’s missing is this: The Second Amendment is the argument. It’s alarming how often people forget this. Whenever there’s violence, the Left starts to demand that the government get the guns off our streets, that it do so now, that it should have done it sooner to keep the people safe. In response, the Right often argues for the benefits of #2A, throwing out statistics such as the fact that gun violence has actually been dropping even though more people have been purchasing firearms, or philosophical arguments such as the idea that people looking to murder masses of people will find a weapon and a way regardless of what the laws are. My personal views may happen to fall into the second camp, but here’s the thing: Regardless of what your personal views are, it’s still true that our Constitution prohibits the kinds of things that the first group wants. If people on the left ever do talk about the Second Amendment, it’s often only to say that it’s “obsolete.” This is, of course, factually untrue: According to the Constitution, the Second Amendment is not obsolete until and unless two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of states agree that it is, or through the constitutional-convention method as detailed in Article V. Again, this isn’t even my argument; it’s the Constitution’s — and, like it or not, that’s important. Unfortunately, however, it’s very common to see the requirements of our Constitution being completely disregarded — even by our elected officials. For example: In New York City, it’s basically impossible to get a gun license unless you’re a police officer or security guard, and you have to pay upwards of $400 in fees just to submit an application that will certainly be rejected. Does that sound like a violation of my constitutional “right to keep and bear arms” to you? Yes; yes it does — and that should bother you, regardless of whether you personally happen to favor these kinds of rules or not. You may be someone who believes that it would be safer to eliminate guns from the hands of the public, and that’s fine — but you still need to view your activism through the lens of constitutional process. You need to be lobbying legislators to amend the Constitution, rather than lobbying officials to create laws that disregard it. Why? Because the Constitution always matters. If you want to say that it shouldn’t always matter, or that should matter except on this issue, then really, what you’re saying is that it never truly does — because you yourself have already stated that exceptions are okay. Either the document has integrity or it doesn’t. Either it has the power to protect our freedoms or it doesn’t — and to me, that seems like an easy choice.
Actually, there is NO choice. The U.S. Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights (i.e. the first ten Amendments to the Constitution) is the rule-book. It is the supreme law of these United States. And those First Ten Amendments, or “Bill of Rights” have a certain heightened deference by the courts, as they were penned by those same founders who inked our Constitution. So, millennial author Katherine “Kat” Timpf IS correct in saying that the Second Amendment “is the argument.” But, even that assessment comes up a little short. The fact of that matter is that the Second Amendment is law. Period. And, (God forbid) until that God-given right is legally removed, it is the law of the land; a law that has been upheld by the Supreme Court time and time again for over two centuries.
A new online course instructs math teachers how to incorporate social-justice ideology into their lessons by discussing how mathematics has historically been used to oppress people. The class — titled “Teaching Social Justice Through Secondary Mathematics” — was developed by Teach for America and is being offered through edX, according to an article in Campus Reform. “Do you ask students to think deeply about global and local social justice issues within your mathematics classroom?” the course overview asks. “This education and teacher training course will help you blend secondary math instruction with topics such as inequity, poverty, and privilege to transform students into global thinkers and mathematicians.” The idea behind the class is that many students are into the whole social-justice thing and that “setting the mathematics within a specially-developed social justice framework can help students realize the power and meaning of both the data and social justice concerns.” According to Campus Reform, the class identifies five principles of “intersectional mathematics,” including “mathematical ethics:” ” Mathematical ethics recognizes that, for centuries, mathematics has been used as a dehumanizing tool. Does one’s IQ fall on the lower half of the bell curve? Mathematics tells us that individual is intellectually lacking. Mathematics formulae also differentiate between the classifications of a war or a genocide and have even been used to trick indigenous people out of land and property.” Now, I personally never enjoyed math in school. In fact, in first grade, I got into huge trouble for standing on a chair and starting a “No More Math! No More Math!” chant in the classroom. Honestly, I just wish I had had access to this information at the time. My “No More Math!” chant landed me in the principal’s office, but perhaps if I had tweaked it a little bit to, say, “For Centuries, Mathematics Has Been Used as a Dehumanizing Tool!” I may have had more success.
No kidding!! 2+2=4. That’s it! There is no “meaning” to it, other than 2+2=4. And, if you don’t know it because you missed that day in class, then oh well. Too bad, so sad. As we’ve been saying from day one here at The Daily Buzz, this political correctness crap is destroying our country. Thanks to millennial reporter Katherine “Kat” Timpf for bringing us that nauseating story. You really can’t make this stuff up, folks.
Ann Coulter has canceled her speech at UC – Berkeley because of violent threats from protesters – and yet somehow, her invitation is what’s been discussed as an example of fascism. Yesterday, in a piece for the the Daily Californian, a Berkeley student and member of its International Socialist Organization named Mukund Rathi claimed that speaking invitations being extended to Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos were evidence of “the disturbing growth of a far right that is a threat to us all,” and announced that his organization and others would be hosting an “Alt Right Delete conference” in August “to defend UC Berkeley as an anti-fascist campus.” What he didn’t mention as an example of fascism in his anti-fascist rant? Protesters shutting down Yiannopoulos’s speech. In fact, he described what happened to Yiannopoulos as the community’s coming out “in defense of the campus against Milo,” as if Milo’s having the freedom to speak were something that needed to be stopped. What’s more, in discussing the need for wider support in stopping the alt-right, Rathi even claimed that “the fights on the streets of Berkeley” in response to a pro-Trump rally on April 15 “showed that we also can’t depend on a small group of anti-fascists to rebuff the far right alone,” because “without an organized mass movement, those who want to confront the far right will conclude that the only available choice to fight back is property destruction and street fighting, while others will conclude that this is no choice at all.” Obviously, he’s correct in saying that a movement that depends on violence isn’t going to be a success, but I have just one question: How on earth can he consider the people who were fighting on the streets to be “anti-fascists” in the first place? A mark of fascist thought is limiting speech through any means, including violence – and what makes this whole thing even crazier is that Rathi does seem to understand this. After all, in his piece, he brags that the Alt Right Delete conference will be “understanding the growth of the far right, the left’s long history of anti-fascist organizing, free speech as a principle of the left.” Rathi actually had the nerve to tout his support for free speech in the exact same piece where he seems to suggest that it’s a good thing to limit speech when it comes to people like Yiannopoulos and Coulter — and he somehow thought that this kind of logically inconsistent drivel was actually cohesive enough to publish. Do I agree with Ann Coulter? Nope! Does that matter? Nope! Because I support free speech, and I understand that “free speech” includes speech that I don’t like. You know who does support blocking certain speech, though? Fascists — and a good start to fighting fascism is probably to stop thinking the same way that fascists do.
Agreed! Millennial reporter Katherine “Kat” Timpf was the author of that op/ed. And, while we disagree with Kat on Ann, we agree with her on the definition of fascism. Clearly it is these pc police and speech nazis like Rathi who are the real fascists. And, on some level if they were to stop and think about it, they’d probably agree.. But, they don’t care. Their religion of dogmatic extreme liberalism requires them to be fascists and stifle debate and civil discourse. Kat is a regular on the Greg Gutfeld show which airs on weekends on the Fox News channel.