90% of Professors Self-Censoring

Paul Lazarsfeld and Wagner Thielens Jr. surveyed almost 2,500 professors right in the middle of the Red Scare on whether or not they were self-censoring in light of the political climate. Nine percent of professors said they were, which by historical standards is really quite bad. Today, in 2023, that number is almost 90%.

Greg Lukianoff
September 25, 2023
The new Red Scare taking over America’s college campuses

And what was the self-censor rate in the USSR? My guess is 99.9% or higher. It is what communists do. They have to do this because the system is so broken it can only exist upon lies. The truth must be censored to avoid the abandonment and/or destruction of the communist organization.

A good rule of thumb is that the more acceptable censorship, the more the society depends upon lies to exist.

 Social Justice Fallacies.

The quest for social justice is a powerful crusade of our time, with an appeal to many different people, for many different reasons. But those who use the same words do not always present the same meanings. Clarifying those meanings is the first step toward finding out what we agree on and disagree on. From there, it is largely a question of what the facts are. Social Justice Fallacies reveals how many things that are thought to be true simply cannot stand up to documented facts, which are often the opposite of what is widely believed.

However attractive the social justice vision, the crucial question is whether the social justice agenda will get us to the fulfillment of that vision. History shows that the social justice agenda has often led in the opposite direction, sometimes with catastrophic consequences.

More things are involved besides simply mistakes. All human beings are fallible, and social justice advocates may not necessarily make any more mistakes than others. But crusaders with an utter certainty about their mission are often undeterred by obstacles, evidence or even fatal dangers. That is where much of the Western world is today. The question is whether we will continue on heedlessly, past the point of no return.

Woman reportedly shoots, kills potential attacker in Colorado Springs

A man was fatally shot when he reportedly tried to assault a woman in Colorado Springs early Monday, according to police.

Around 1:15 a.m., police responded to a shooting at an apartment complex in the 6900 block of Alpine Currant View, located directly southwest of Woodmen Road and Union Boulevard.

The woman who reported the shooting said she had been “about to be attacked by a male she just met,” so she shot him and then left the area, police said.

Officers located the woman in her car at a nearby hospital and found a deceased male in the apartment complex parking lot, officials said.

The woman was interviewed and released , police said.

September 26

1371 – Ottoman Turks commanded by Lala Şahin Pasha, inflict a severe defeat against Serbian forces commanded by King Vukašin Mrnjavčević  at the Maritsa River near present-day Ormenio, Greece, resulting in parts of Macedonia and Thrace falling under Ottoman rule after the battle.

1580 – Francis Drake finishes his circumnavigation of the Earth.

1687 – The Parthenon in Athens, used as a gunpowder depot by the Ottoman garrison, is partially destroyed after being bombarded during the Siege of the Acropolis by Venetian forces during the Morean War.

1688 – The city council of Amsterdam votes to support William of Orange’s invasion of England, which became the ‘Glorious Revolution’, which resulted in the passage of the English Bill or Rights where the individual right to arms was first specified and the Crown’s power restricted from.

1777 –British troops occupy Philadelphia during the Revolutionary War

1789 – President Washington appoints Thomas Jefferson the first United States Secretary of State.

1820 – Daniel Boone dies at his son Nathan’s house near Defiance, Missouri

1905 – Albert Einstein publishes the 3rd of his Annus Mirabilis papers, introducing the special theory of relativity.

1918 – The principal engagement of the American Expeditionary Force in World War I begins on the Verdun Sector as part of the Meuse-Argonne Offensive on the Western Front.

1933 – As gangster Machine Gun Kelly surrenders to the FBI, he shouts out, “Don’t shoot, G-Men!”, which becomes a nickname for FBI agents.

1950 – 11 days after landing at Inchon Harbor, United Nations troops recapture Seoul from North Korean forces during the Korean War

1960 – In Chicago, the first televised debate takes place between presidential candidates Richard M. Nixon and John F. Kennedy.

1973 – The Concorde makes its first non-stop crossing of the Atlantic

1981 – Houston Astros’ pitcher Nolan Ryan sets a Major League Baseball record by throwing his 5th ‘no-hitter’ game at the Astrodome against the Los Angeles Dodgers.

1983 – Australia II, skippered by John Bertrand, wins the America’s Cup, ending the New York Yacht Club’s 132 year long domination of the race.

1984 – Nearing the end of the 99 year lease on the area, the United Kingdom and China agree to a transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong, to take place in 1997

2008 – Swiss pilot and inventor Yves Rossy becomes first person to fly a jet engine powered wing as a personal aircraft, across the English Channel.

 

It’s easy to fact-check Al. All he does is lie.

Fact Check: Al Sharpton Says No Mass Killings Without ‘Mass Instruments’

CLAIM: During a Friday appearance on MSNBC, Al Sharpton bemoaned the inability to secure more gun control and claimed there would be no mass killings without “mass instruments.”

VERDICT: False.

Breitbart News reported Sharpton suggested gun control can be pursued under the banner of “civil rights.”

He went on to say that whether gun control is pursued as a civil right or “just on guns, people cannot do mass killings unless they have mass instruments.”

Sharpton focused on AR-15s and suggested he is shocked by people who say, “No, we’re not giving up our AR-15s.”

He did not mention the work done via a partnership between Northeastern University, the Associated Press, and USA Today, which traces “mass killings” back to 2006 and shows “semiautomatic handguns are far more common in mass killings than guns that are typically characterized as assault weapons, such as the AR-15.”

Graphs used by Northeastern/AP/USA Today show handguns are used in “mass killings” almost twice as much as “long guns,” the latter being a category which includes shotguns, rifles of every kind, etc.

During the MSNBC segment, Sharpton pointed to the August 26, 2023, Jacksonville, Florida, shooting in which a man with an AR-15 killed three people at a Dollar General store. He did not mention the April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech shooting, in which an attacker with two handguns killed 32 people.

Sharpton also omitted the November 21, 2021, incident in which Darrell Brooks Jr. drove over people during a Milwaukee parade, killing six.

He left out the July 14, 2016, attack in Nice, France, in which a terrorist used a truck to kill 86 people and failed to mention the September 11, 2001, attacks, in which airplanes were weaponized to kill nearly 3,000 people.

Sharpton’s claim is false.

Judge Benitez destroys the 2.2 rounds per DGU lie once and for all

Over two years ago, I read through some court filings in Duncan v. Bonta, the lawsuit against California’s “large capacity” magazine ban. I was left scratching my head at a claim from the State of California in support of their magazine ban, that the average Defensive Gun Use (DGU) incident involves discharging only 2.2 rounds. The more I looked into it, the more obvious it became that this was unsubstantiated.

Since then, Duncan v. Bonta made a trip to the Supreme Court, got GVR’d after NYSRPA v. Bruen, and sent back down the judicial hierarchy to the US District Court for the Southern District of California. The district court published its decision last Friday, in which Judge Roger Benitez completely took apart the 2.2 rounds per DGU canard (PDF pages 26-33):

C. The Invention of the 2.2 Shot Average

…the State’s statistic is suspect. California relies entirely on the opinion of its statistician for the hypothesis that defenders fire an average of only 2.2 shots in cases of confrontation.

Where does the 2.2 shot average originate? There is no national or state government data report on shots fired in self-defense events. There is no public government database. One would expect to see investigatory police reports as the most likely source to accurately capture data on shots fired or number of shell casings found, although not every use of a gun in self-defense is reported to the police. As between the two sides, while in the better position to collect and produce such reports, the State’s Attorney General has not provided a single police report to the Court or to his own expert. 

Without investigatory reports, the State’s expert turns to anecdotal statements, often from bystanders, reported in news media, and selectively studied. She indicates she conducted two studies. Based on these two studies of newspaper stories, she opines that it is statistically rare for a person to fire more than 10 rounds in self-defense and that only 2.2 shots are fired on average. Unfortunately, her opinion lacks classic indicia of reliability and her two studies cannot be reproduced and are not peer-reviewed.

“Reliability and validity are two aspects of accuracy in measurement. In statistics, reliability refers to reproducibility of results.” Her studies cannot be tested because she has not disclosed her data. Her studies have not been replicated. In fact, the formula used to select 200 news stories for the Factiva study is incomprehensible. […]

For one study, Allen says she conducted a search of stories published in the NRA Institute for Legislative Action magazine (known as the Armed Citizen Database) between 2011 and 2017. There is no explanation for the choice to use 2011 for the beginning. After all, the collection of news stories goes back to 1958. Elsewhere in her declaration she studies mass shooting events but for that chooses a much longer time period reaching back to 1982. Likewise, there is no explanation for not updating the study after 2017.

[…] details are completely absent. Allen does not list the 736 stories. Nor does she reveal how she assigned the number of shots fired in self-defense when the news accounts use phrases like “the intruder was shot” but no number of shots was reported, or “there was an exchange of gunfire,” or “multiple rounds were fired.” She includes in her 2.2 average of defensive shots fired, incidents where no shots were fired. […] She does not reveal the imputed number substitute value that she used where the exact number of shots fired was not specified, so her result cannot be reproduced. […] For example, this Court randomly selected two pages from Allen’s mass shooting table: pages 10 and 14. From looking at these two pages (assuming that the sources for the reports were accurate and unbiased) the Court is able to make statistical observations, including the observation that the number of shots fired were unknown 69.04% of the time.

The foundation of the claim was not real data but “anecdata,” which don’t cover nearly as many incidents as actual police reports do. (Not every incident is reported, so even police data is incomplete.)

Second, the sampled news reports were randomly selected. It isn’t clear if there were any process safeguards to prevent cherry picking, and there is no transparency about the included incidents.

Third, the selected timeframes look arbitrary.

Fourth, as Judge Benitez points out, including zero-shot incidents will obviously bring the average down, so it’s questionable.

The most devastating critique is that the expert assigned an arbitrary number of shots fired when news stories didn’t include that crucial detail.

The Court is aware of its obligation to act as a gatekeeper to keep out junk science where it does not meet the reliability standard of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. […] while questionable expert testimony was admitted, it has now been weighed in light of all of the evidence.

Using interest-balancing, the en banc 9th Circuit shamelessly rubber-stamped California’s infringement using this pathetic junk science. It’s gratifying to see interest-balancing tossed into the garbage alongside this junk science under the new Bruen standard.

Charles Glasser – 

The Washington Post: We have to destroy the First Amendment in order to save it. In what has to be the most blockheaded analysis I’ve read in years, The Post ran a story this afternoon titled “Misinformation research is buckling under GOP legal attacks.”

Of course the conservatives and libertarians are leading the charge. It’s the fight against government coercing, cajoling or even cooperating with publishers (electronic and otherwise) to suppress right-leaning views.

To paraphrase James Carville: “It’s the Constitution, Stupid.”

The people who want to censor the right have put a new dress on their pig.  The Washington Post painted it thusly:

“The escalating campaign — led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and other Republicans in Congress and state government — has cast a pall over programs that study not just political falsehoods but also the quality of medical information online.”

“See, we have a First Amendment right to figure out how to suppress others’ speech. We’re the real victims here.”

As you may remember, as The Hill reported on Missouri v. Biden:

“A federal appellate court concluded Sept. 8 that multiple White House, surgeon general, FBI and CDC officials likely breached the fine line separating permissible government persuasion and jawboning from illicit “coercion and significant encouragement” when they repeatedly — and often successfully — lobbied social-media companies “to remove disfavored content and accounts from their sites.”

At that oral argument, Judge Don Willett had no problem with federal agencies publicly criticizing what they judged false or dangerous ideas. But that wasn’t how Biden’s winged monkeys compelled submission: “Here you have government in secret, in private, out of the public eye, relying on . . . subtle strong-arming and veiled or not-so-veiled threats” said the Judge.

Willett expressed his disgust with the mafia-like tactics of the Biden administration: “That’s a really nice social-media platform you’ve got there, it would be a shame if something happened to it.”

 

Well, he’s bizarre, so……

Biden’s comments on gun violence truly bizarre

After nearly three years in office, there are a lot of things I’ve come to expect out of the Biden administration. Coherent comments by the president aren’t among them.

Yet in announcing his new Office of Gun Violence Prevention, Biden had to open up and discuss so-called gun violence more broadly. He couldn’t just announce the office and leave it there, he had to explain to the press–the same guys who wanted this for years, mind you–why it was supposedly needed.

In discussing “gun violence,” however, Biden was his typical self, saying things that raised more than a few eyebrows.

On Friday, while touting his strict gun control laws, Biden continued his trend of lying when he claimed he has been to “every mass shooting.”

Biden furthered his support for restricting the Second Amendment, saying, “If you need 80 shots in a magazine, you shouldn’t own a gun.”

Yeah, buddy. That happened.

First, no, Biden hasn’t been to every mass shooting. Especially if you consider the definition of mass shooting that his party tends to prefer, which is the Gun Violence Archive definition that is just based on the number of people shot, not killed.

This definition inflates the number of mass shootings into a huge number, one that would make it impossible for Biden to visit every mass shooting.

Further, Biden offered no real qualifiers on those mass shootings, so even if we use the more traditional definitions that are based on the number of people killed, it’s unlikely he visited every mass shooting that ever happened in the US, much less the planet as a whole.

Because while people like Biden tend to pretend that mass shootings are uniquely American, they happen everywhere.

Then we get to the whole “if you need 80 shots in a magazine, you shouldn’t have a gun.”

First, there aren’t any 80-round magazines out there, though I suspect a company like Palmetto State Armory might be cooking up one right about now.

Yet even if there were, so what?

There is nothing in our Second Amendment that seems to support such a supposition. If we need X number of rounds, we shouldn’t have a firearm? Why is that? Under what criteria would we be allowed to have a gun? Is the limit 79 rounds? Five rounds? What exactly?

Now, generally speaking, people haven’t needed that many rounds for any lawful situation they might find themselves in. Many defensive gun uses take place with zero rounds being fired.

But many others take a lot more than some might think.

The truth is that no one who has survived a gunfight has ever said, “Gee, I wish I’d had less ammo.”

See, the problem with Biden’s myopic comment–and this is me trying to be charitable here–is that it doesn’t account for individual circumstances. There’s a difference between some guy pulling a gun on a mugger and someone who has angered an organized mob that wants their head.

Further, let’s remember that the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting or even muggers, specifically. Yes, the Tyranny of the Thug is a thing, but the amendment was essentially penned as an insurance policy on the rest of our rights. It was meant as a bulwark against tyranny as a whole.

Our Founding Fathers had just fought a war that started when the tyrannical government marched on a town to seize arms from them. It’s really unlikely that they intended to make it easier for a tyrannical leader to do the same again.

So no, there are no exceptions to the Second Amendment, no matter how many rounds you need in a magazine.

But since Biden clearly has never read the Second Amendment and definitely dismissed the Bruen decision, we’ve clearly got a long fight on our hands.

Support
About
Terms
Privacy

Is This the Most Pathetic Defense of Joe Biden’s Impeachable Offenses?

The Democrats and the mainstream media have been tirelessly claiming that there is “no evidence” of wrongdoing by Joe Biden to justify an impeachment inquiry—a blatant denial of the fact that the House Oversight Committee has the receipts, including eyewitness testimony and financial records.

The White House is clearly concerned and instructed the already compliant mainstream media to attack the impeachment inquiry—as if they needed the marching orders in the first place. So far, every attempt by the media to claim the inquiry is based on “no evidence” has resulted in humiliation. Even a CNN fact check was unable to deny the key facts House Speaker McCarthy cited as justifying the inquiry.

Representative James Clyburn (D-S.C.), who is widely credited with saving Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign, didn’t even try to deny the existence of evidence during his appearance on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, and simply argued that—are you ready for this?— Republicans want to impeach Joe Biden  for “being a father to his son.”

“Let me ask you about the impeachment inquiry that is going to unfold this week on Capitol Hill. I know you and your Democrats have called this pure politics,” said host Kristen Welker. “But big picture, they’re trying to see if there’s any link between Hunter Biden and the president and his business dealings. Are you comfortable with a family member profiting off their last name in this town?”

“You know, we all, to some extent, live so that our children can be proud of the name that we’ve given them. I have three daughters, and I want them to feel very comfortable being a Clyburn,” he said, clearly avoiding answering the question. “I do know that that is very, very important for going forward, but that doesn’t mean they want them to do things that are unseemly to the name. I do want them to use the name to their benefit.”

“Yet, President Biden, according to one witness testimony, was on the phone 20 times with Hunter Biden’s business associates and described as pleasantries, but is that appropriate?” she asked.

“I think it’s appropriate to be a father to your son, and if your son is having a problem, and we all know the history of the problem that Hunter has with addiction, and he is being a father to his son,” Clyburn claimed. “You don’t impeach a man for being a father to his children.”

Ahh, so that’s it. Joe Biden wasn’t using his position to help Hunter sell influence, he was being a father to his crackhead son. I can’t help but notice that Clyburn didn’t even try to claim that there is no evidence to justify the impeachment inquiry; he merely sought to downplay Joe Biden’s role by claiming he was doing what a father does—and, at the same time, effectively admitting that Joe Biden was, in fact, knowingly helping Hunter with his business, because, what are fathers for, right?

But does being a father to his son mean using his position as vice [resident of the United States to get millions of dollars funneled to his family and laundering that money via twenty different shell companies? Does being a father to his son mean using a $1 billion loan to Ukraine as leverage to get a prosecutor investigating Burisma fired because Hunter was getting $1 million a year sitting on their board?

That’s not being a father to his son; it’s being a corrupt politician.

Multiple polls have shown Americans are already convinced there was Biden family corruption. An Economist/YouGov poll found that 72% of American adults believe Hunter Biden profited off his father’s position, including 53% of Democrats and 72% of Independents. Another poll from I&I/TIPP found that 56% of U.S. voters say that it is “likely” that Biden took bribes, while only 27% say it was “unlikely.”

 

Bill Gates Says ‘Brute Force’ Climate Policies Won’t Work
Speaking at a live event at The Times Center in New York, the billionaire philanthropist argued for a pragmatic, technology-driven approach to global warming.

“Are we the science people or are we the idiots?” asked Bill Gates, during a discussion about his pragmatic strategy to fighting climate

Bill Gates, the multibillionaire founder of Microsoft, argued for a pragmatic, technology-driven approach to fighting climate change on Thursday.

“If you try to do climate brute force, you will get people who say, ‘I like climate but I don’t want to bear that cost and reduce my standard of living,’” Mr. Gates said at the Climate Forward event hosted by The New York Times. “Without innovation, it’s unlikely, particularly in middle-income countries, that the brute force approach will be successful.”
Mr. Gates also said winning more bipartisan support was needed in order for policy to actually stick. “Republicans for climate change action are gold, you know,” he said. “That’s got to be a number that somehow we manage to increase over time.”

“You can’t have a climate policy that when one party is in charge goes full speed ahead and stops cold,” he added. “These are 30-year investments in steel factories, new ways of making meat.”

Mr. Gates, who in recent weeks has espoused an everything-will-be-fine approach to the climate crisis, was asked whether he could reconcile that stance with the reality of extreme weather around the globe.

“I’m the person who is doing the most on climate in terms of the innovation and how we can square multiple goals,” said Mr. Gates, a co-founder of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major donor to health- and climate-related causes. “There’s very limited money for causes to reduce inequity in the world. And no temperate country is going to become uninhabitable.”

Instead, he said, he is taking a more pragmatic approach and drawing a line at untested remedies like planting a trillion trees.
“Are we the science people or are we the idiots?” he said. “Which one do we want to be?”

September 25

275 – For the last time, the Roman Senate chooses an emperor, electing 75 year old Marcus Claudius Tacitus, who rules for less than a year before dying of an illness.

1066 – Having arrived at York by forced march from London 200 miles away, King Harold Godwinson and his army surprise the army of Norse King Harald Hardrada near Stamford Bridge. Despite suffering heavy casualties, Godwinson’s army defeats and nearly annihilates the Norsemen.

1396 – Forces of Ottoman Emperor Bayezid I defeat and rout a Christian army at the Battle of Nicopolis in northern Bulgaria.

1513 – Spanish explorer Vasco Núñez de Balboa, crosses the isthmus of Panama and reaches what would become known as the Pacific Ocean.

1775 – In the Battle of Longue-Pointe, Ethan Allen and his force of American and Quebec militia are forced to surrender to the British after failing to capture Montreal

1789 – The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added;
Thus, the U.S. Congress passes twelve articles termed The Bill Of Rights and submits them to the states for ratification.

1804 – During the Lewis and Clark Expedition, the Teton Sioux demand one of the company’s boats as a toll for allowing it to move further upriver. However, the demonstration of the firepower the expedition had on hand, especially the Girardoni air rifle, convinced the tribe to back down.

1890 – Congress establishes Sequoia National Park.

1912 – Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism is founded in New York City.

1944 – Surviving elements of the British 1st Airborne Division withdraw from Arnhem via Oosterbeek having failed to take the last bridge necessary to cross the Nederrijn river and open the way to invade Germany in Operation Market Garden.

1956 – TAT-1, the first submarine transatlantic telephone cable system becomes operational

1964 – The Mozambican War of Independence against Portugal begins.

1978 – PSA Flight 182, a Boeing 727, collides in mid-air with a Cessna 172 and crashes in San Diego, killing all 137 people aboard both planes and 7 on ground.

1992 – NASA launches the Mars Observer probe. 11 months later, the probe would fail while preparing for orbital insertion.

2006 – Jeff Cooper dies at age 86 at his home in Paulden, Arizona

More of that quality New York gun control

New York has tripped over itself as a state to pass as much gun control as it can lately. After the Bruen decision gutted the requirement for people to show cause to carry a firearm, they’ve done what they could to make it untenable to do so.

But this isn’t new. The NY SAFE Act, for example, was a serious infringement on people’s Second Amendment rights and one that, in time, will likely be overturned.

Yet it’s the law here and now for people in the state. Law-abiding citizens don’t get to own things like the same AR-15s most of us can head to the store and buy right now.

It seems alleged criminals have no problems getting them, though.

On September 20th, 2023, Humboldt County Drug Task Force Agents, and Officers with the Fortuna Police Department (FoPD) served a multi-location search warrant at a residence located in the 1000 block of Ivy Lane, Fortuna, a residence located in the 1000 block of Shamrock Drive in Fortuna, and on the persons of Aaron Allen ROBERTSON (Age 30) and Heather Danielle SPECHT (Age 29). After a multi-week investigation, the HCDTF believed ROBERTSON and SPECHT were in possession of large quantities of cocaine and multiple firearms for the purpose of sales.…

After ROBERTSON and SPECHT were detained, Agents searched their vehicle and located approximately 8 grams of cocaine, a digital scale, and packaging materials.

Agents continued on to search the residence that ROBERTSON and SPECHT were observed to be exiting. Agents located a large safe in the garage. After gaining access to the safe, Agents located four firearms including a functional 9mm “Uzi” sub-machinegun. Agents also located a box containing multiple plastic baggies, including one large vacuum sealed bag that had been opened. All of the packaging was covered in cocaine residue and accompanied by large bowls and mixing utensils.

Agents responded to the additional property on Ivy Lane that was also under the control of ROBERTSON and SPECHT. Agents searched the Ivy Lane residence and located five additional firearms and ammunition.…

Upon arrival at the residence on Smith Lane, Agents located CERVANTES-CUELLAR, Johnathan Charles ROBERTS (age 26), and Taylor Franklyn MILLER (age 25) inside of the residence. All three subjects were detained without incident.

During a search of the residence Agents located 25 firearms including several assault weapons. Agents also located hundreds of rounds of ammunition, several high-capacity magazines, multiple vests equipped with body armor, packaging materials, and a digital scale with cocaine residue.

I mean, take a look at these guns for a second:

I’m sorry, but that’s kind of impressive when you consider how much of it is outright illegal in the state of New York. Gun control is clearly working out really well there, isn’t it?

Now, don’t get me wrong, I think absolutely none of this should be illegal. Yes, I include the actual submachine gun in this, too. The problem is that most lawmakers in the state disagree. They like gun control. They want more gun control.

Yet they don’t seem to grasp that the people who represent a problem, like these suspected drug dealers, aren’t inclined to follow gun laws any more than they’re inclined to obey drug laws.

“But if other states-” Just stop with that crap. You’re embarrassing yourself.

That’s a freaking Uzi and it was described by law enforcement as a functional submachine gun. Please name the state where you can just walk into a store, buy one of those, and walk out. You can’t because no such state exists. These are among the most tightly controlled firearms at the federal level and these alleged drug dealers managed to get their hands on one.

If they could get an Uzi, do you think they’d be unable to get anything else?

I mean, the apparently got their hands on at least some cocaine and that’s even more illegal than most of these guns.

The truth of the matter is that criminals aren’t inhibited by laws. If they’re inclined to break serious laws like dealing drugs then there’s no reason to believe they’ll be beholden to gun laws. New York keeps thinking otherwise, but this story and one earlier this week show just how stupid lawmakers are to believe such a thing.

God-Hating Group Threatens Auburn University With Lawsuit Over Student Baptisms

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is threatening to sue Auburn University after some 200 students participated in a spontaneous and unscripted mass baptism at a “Unite Auburn” worship event Tuesday night.

The “Unite Auburn” event featured performances by Christian worship band Passion and included speakers such as Jennie Allen, a Christian author, and Rev. Jonathan Pokluda, lead pastor of Harris Creek Baptist Church in Waco, Texas.

Following the event, one individual reportedly wanted to be baptized, but a tub was not available for use. Seeking a solution, students began gathering at the lake.

Photographs and video footage from the event showed hundreds of college students lining the banks of the lake as students waded into the water to be baptized one by one over a two-hour period.

About 200 students chose to be baptized from a crowd of over 5,000.

According to the godless twits at FFRF, the First Amendment requires public universities to suppress all religious activity.

Continue reading “”