Katherine Timpf

Timpf: I’m Not Arguing in Favor of the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment Is the Argument

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.

Timpf: Survey: Only 39 Percent of College Students Know That Hate Speech Is Protected Speech

In a recent survey of college students, only 39 percent responded that they that believe that the Constitution protects hate speech — which, by the way, it does. John Villasenor, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a professor at UCLA, surveyed 1,500 college students on free-speech issues. In response to the question of whether or not hate speech is constitutionally protected, only 39 percent correctly answered “yes,” 44 percent answered “no,” and 16 percent answered “don’t know.” Yes, a whopping 44 percent actually said that it isn’t protected. Not that it is protected but they think that it shouldn’t be, or that they’re not sure whether it’s protected or not, but that it is definitely not protected and they know that for a fact. It truly is terrifying, and in case you think this is just a case of dumb snowflake libtard kids not knowing how merica works, only 51 percent of the Republican students surveyed said that hate speech was protected, which is far from an impressive number. (To be fair, they did do better than the Democrats: Only 31 percent said yes.) Now, what makes the results of this survey especially enlightening (in that horrific, we-are-f***ing-doomed kind of way) is the context that it provides for what we’ve been seeing on college campuses. There’s been story after story about students protesting appearances by certain speakers on the grounds that they’re “hateful” and “offensive” — and now we know that, for an alarmingly high percentage of them, it’s not just that they think the school should have rules protecting them from speech, or even that there should be laws protecting against this kind of speech — it’s that they think there already are those laws. Apparently, a lot of those idiots who are sitting there writing anti-speech op-eds or standing on the streets holding anti-speech protest signs actually think they’re on the side of the law. You’d think this would be something that they would have at least Googled by now — given how savvy millennials are supposed to be on the Internet and all that — but apparently, that would be asking too much. Oh, and it gets worse: 19 percent responded that they actually believed that violence was an “acceptable” way to stop a speaker. Look, kids: Not only does the Constitution protect hate speech, but it should protect hate speech. Is that because hate speech is good? No, I don’t like the speech that I consider hate speech, and that’s the point — everyone is going to have a different opinion of what is and is not “hate speech.” What some people consider “hate speech,” others might consider to be hilarious or even virtuous speech, and it would be dangerous to allow the government to decide what qualifies. Any time you start thinking the government should intervene to stop speech that you don’t like, realize that those exact same rules could eventually be used to stop your own speech.

Exactly!! Millennial reporter Katherine “Kat” Timpf is responsible for that outstanding op/ed.

Timpf: Berkeley Mayor Is So Concerned About Antifa Violence That He Wants to Reward It

On Monday, Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin (D) said he was so “concerned” about Antifa violence at a scheduled speech at the University of California–Berkeley that the school should cancel it altogether. In other words: His strategy for stopping Antifa violence is to give the group exactly what they want, and to let them know that the reason they’re getting what they want is because of their violence — and there really just aren’t enough desks in the world for me to smash my head on when I think about how dumb that is. The speech in question, of course, is one by alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. A conservative campus newspaper, the Berkeley Patriot, scheduled it as part of its “Free Speech Week,” and Arreguin says that the risk it might spark a violent reaction is one that his community should just not be willing to take. “I’m very concerned about Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter and some of these other right-wing speakers coming to the Berkeley campus, because it’s just a target for black bloc to come out and commit mayhem on the Berkeley campus and have that potentially spill out on the street,” Arreguin told the San Francisco Chronicle. “I obviously believe in freedom of speech, but there is a line between freedom of speech and then posing a risk to public safety,” the mayor said. “That is where we have to really be very careful — that while protecting people’s free-speech rights, we are not putting our citizens in a potentially dangerous situation and costing the city hundreds of thousands of dollars fixing the windows of businesses.” Arreguin’s concerns are, of course, warranted. After all, the outcome that he’s worried about has happened before: In February, UC–Berkeley had to cancel one of Yiannopoulos’s speeches because Antifa showed up and started smashing windows and shooting off fireworks at the venue, causing $100,000 worth of damage to the school’s student union. Now, what happened in February was obviously unacceptable, and Arreguin is completely correct to say that he doesn’t want that happening in his city. Here’s the thing, though: Canceling the speech because of this violence is sending Antifa the message that its violence works. Arreuin toldt the Chronicle that he didn’t “want Berkeley being used as a punching bag,” but the truth is, that’s exactly what he’d be turning it into by bending over and allowing Antifa thuggery to dictate what kind of events its campuses can host. It’s lazy, it’s short-sighted, and quite frankly, idiotic. Thankfully, the school doesn’t seem to be heeding his advice. UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof told the Chronicle that officials at the school “have neither the right nor ability to interfere with or cancel invitations based on the perspectives and beliefs of the speakers.” Truly, it’s terrifying to imagine what kind of place this country would become if we started allowing extremist violence to limit our speech. If you, like Arreguin, think that Antifa’s violence is dangerous, then the absolute worst thing that you could do would be to tell them that it’s actually the perfect way for them to get exactly what they want. Yes, Arreguin may say that he “obviously believe[s] in freedom of speech,” but his reaction proves that he’d rather just sacrifice it than actually take the time to figure out how to do the job that government officials like him are elected to do — which is to protect the basic rights of the people whom they serve. The fact that an elected official in the United States could actually look at what happened in February and think that the lesson to be learned was “Oh, okay. Well, then now we know that we just limit speech then!” is idiotic and lazy at best, and terrifying at worst. Obviously, the focus should instead be on learning how to better prepare your community to face this threat, which is about so much more than just protecting its buildings and windows from damage. It’s about protecting its people’s very right to exist as free individuals in a free society, and there should be nothing more important to our elected officials than that.

Agreed!  And well said, Kat.  Millennial reporter Katherine “Kat” Timpf is responsible for that excellent op/ed.

Timpf: Seattle City Councilman: Hosing Poop-Covered Sidewalks Might Be Racially Insensitive

A city councilman in Seattle is reportedly opposed to hosing sidewalks that reek of excrement near a local courthouse because he fears that it might be racially insensitive. No, this is not a joke. The area surrounding King County Superior Court includes a homeless shelter and other social-services organizations and has become an “unsanitary and potentially frightening” scene — one “that reeks of urine and excrement” — according to an article in the Seattle Times. Desperate for help with the disgusting environment, two of the court’s judges have asked the city to please power-wash the poop-covered sidewalks. That seems like a pretty reasonable request, but apparently, one councilman is worried that doing so might be a form of microaggression. According to the Times, Councilmember Larry Gossett “said he didn’t like the idea of power-washing the sidewalks because it brought back images of the use of hoses against civil-rights activists.” Now, I’m not trying to diminish the struggles of civil-rights activists, but Gossett’s concern here is nothing short of insane. I mean, seriously — who even thinks of such a thing? I see people power-washing bodily fluids off of the streets of New York City (including streets outside of courthouses) all the time, and I have not once seen any of them being called racist. To be fair, this city does still smell terrible, so the power-washing plan might not be the perfect solution on practical grounds, but at least it’s a start. What else are you going to do – not wash them? Because I really, really reject the idea that leaving sidewalks covered with human bodily waste is the less offensive move in this (or any) situation. Anyone over the age of three knows that if you see poop somewhere, it’s supposed to be cleaned up. What’s more, most little kids could probably also tell you that said clean-up is supposed to involve water. In fact, before this, I would have told you that this is probably the least controversial opinion in human history. But social-justice alarmism can do a great job of turning the clearly uncontroversial into an outrage, and often at the expense of basic logic and practicality. It’s not that all social-justice activism is bad, of course. It’s great to be nice, and it’s great to be sensitive, but an obsession with social justice and political correctness can make people’s brains start to malfunction — and I’m not sure that I’ve ever seen a better example of that than this.

That disturbing, and stinky, example of political correctness gone crazy was brought to us courtesy of Katherine “Kat” Timpf.

Timpf: Social-Justice Math Class: ‘Math Has Been Used as a Dehumanizing Tool’

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.

Timpf: Social-Justice Blog Says ‘Stupid’ Is an ‘Ableist Slur’

According to a post in the social-justice blog Everyday Feminism, the word “stupid” is not just a kind of mean thing to say, but actually an all-out “ableist slur,” regardless of whether you’re using it to describe things or people. “In my view, the fact that this word is a slur is self-evident,” Jenny Crofton writes in a piece titled “Yes, ‘Stupid’ Is an Ableist Slur – Let’s Unpack Your Defensiveness About That.” 

Crofton explains that not only is stupid “an insult,” which she claims is “reason enough to stop using it,” (something that I, personally, disagree with — we need insults in our language because let’s face it, sometimes people deserve them) but that it’s also an ableist term because “it’s used to insult people with cognitive impairments, autism, Down syndrome, ADD, and other developmental disabilities.” Now, of course, I’d completely agree that calling someone with autism “stupid” would be a sick, depraved thing to do. But that’s not where Crofton stops. No, Crofton argues that it is always a huge problem “to describe something or someone as ‘stupid’” because “it harms and triggers disabled people, which can make it a source of mass psychological harm for an already marginalized group” and “creates and enforces systemic and institutional bias.” “The history of disability in our society is rife with injustices based on intelligence. . . . Children with intellectual disabilities are at extremely high risk for abuse, including sexual assault,” Crofton writes. Look — I completely agree that society is not fair toward people with intellectual disabilities, but trying to connect someone using the word “stupid” to describe an inanimate object to the sexual assault of a child is completely bananas. It’s great to be sensitive, and it’s especially important to be sensitive toward people who are dealing with disabilities. But the truth is, no one sees the word “stupid” as being reserved to describe people of a certain group, or even as being reserved to describe people at all. Are all words in the English language positive? No, and “stupid” is certainly an example of a negative one. But to say that the word “stupid” is so harmful that it is actually contributing to the sexual assault of children and creating “mass psychological harm” is pretty clearly taking things just a bit too far.

Agreed!!  And, well said, Kat.  Millennial reporter Katherine “Kat” Timpf is responsible for that great op/ed.  The pc police and speech nazis are destroying our country with nonsense like this..

Timpf: The People Protesting Speeches in the Name of Stopping Fascism Kind of Sound Like Fascists

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.