Where Have All The Swimsuits Gone?

Miss America Beauty Contest has become the Miss America Politically Correct Competition.

America has finally hit the skids, when a beauty contest doesn't focus on feminine pulchritude.
("Pulchritude-ness"?) of the femininity of its contestants,

I stand with the author (see below) in my dismay that the "swimsuit competition:" has been eliminated as one of the essential elements of a beauty contest.

Let me say that loudly:

A BEAUTY CONTEST WITHOUT SWIMSUIT COMPETITION?  MADNESS!

Face, Figure, Form.  Okay, you can be a Rhodes Scholar and that helps, but it's still a BEAUTY CONTEST and how can you judge beauty without  ... oh, wait a minute.  Are they going to ask the contestants to model in the nude?

There's a Liberal theme here, and I'm against it.
And I'm not the only one:

Miss America Swimsuit Competition Eliminated: Political Correctness Gone Wild | National Review: The Miss America competition will now focus on ‘scholarship, social impact, talent and empowerment.’ Good luck with that. The Miss America Organization announced this week that it will no longer judge women on their “outward physical appearance.” To that end, the swimsuit competition is gone. “We are no longer a pageant,” Gretchen Carlson, the group’s head, explained. “Miss America will represent a new generation of female leaders focused on scholarship, social impact, talent and empowerment.” Before I go on, let me confess my shameful secret: I like looking at really beautiful women, including when they wear bikinis.

I'm with "That Guy".

As a reasonable comparison, what if the National Merit Scholarship Program decided to eliminate Grade Point Average of prospective candidates,

It would lose all of its supposed pertinence. 
Scholarship is defined as smartness; Beauty is defined as comeliness.

You want to eliminate the Swimsuit Competition from Beauty Contests?
Fine with me ... let them pose in the Nude Competition.

Heck, I might actually hook my television to the Cable outlet to watch that show.

NEW NEWS: Harvard Students Are "LIBERAL"!!!!

It SOUNDS as if Harvard were contemplating the inclusion of Republicans on their staff.
But we know that's never going to happen.

Perhaps a couple of  Republican students may be admitted; but that would be just cruel in a student body where they're outnumbered 20,000 to one.

Harvard Student Paper Calls Out University's Liberal Bias, Pushes for Ideological Diversity on Campus | Fox News Insider:

Harvard University's student newspaper criticized the school's liberal bias and called for greater ideological diversity on campus. In an editorial, The Crimson argued that the conversation surrounding diversity and inclusion at Harvard has been dominated by issues of race and gender. "While we should always strive for more conversation that focuses on addressing the unquestionably salient issues of racial and gender identity, approaches seeking to foster diversity, inclusion, and belonging at Harvard should be more comprehensive," the editorial board wrote.

In reference to Conservative Students, would they refer to them using the N-word?

Gun Owner Offends Writer For Posing in an Unacceptable Manner

"Most gun owners would not hold their gun in this same posed manner."

Why Not?   He's at  a GUN RANGE!

Parkland Teacher Attacks Kyle Kashuv Over Gun Photo | Daily Wire:

This photo was apparently NOT taken at a "School", so the presence of a young man holding a rifle is not obviously a threat to a school

It's possible that  the criticism is because the photo shows the young man at a shooting range, facing UP RANGE, and he is behind the line of fire.   But there's no reason to believe that the firing line had not been cleared before the photo was taken.

But the comment is "... hold their gun ...", and all we can tell from the photo is that:

 (a) his finger is OFF the trigger;
 (b) the gun seems to be unloaded (no magazine inserted);
 (c) the muzzle is not discernibly pointing "up-range".

There's nothing "unacceptable" with his firearms safety procedures.

Here's the "posed manner":

Photo Source: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbRcweDW4AEpZMy.jpg*Kyle Kashuv on Twitter*

NOTE: "Range Rules" not obviously violated. The Critic doesn't identify the "problem".


Here is the article's full quote from the critical teacher, in the context of the Daily Wire article:

In response to a photo that was taken of Kashuv, American History teacher Greg Pittman tweeted: "As a teacher from Stoneman Douglas, any student posting photos holding guns, knives or other weapons would be questioned. 4 federal cases have ruled in the last 10 years that assault weapons are not protected. Most gun owners would not hold their gun in this same posed manner."

The quote's emphasis seems to suggest that the criticism concerns the validity of Student + Photo + Guns/Weapons = BAD!

My Opinion:
Any American who is not forbidden by virtue of insanity, felonious history, or certain other legal bans (include domestic violence ) is acknowledged by the Constitution to the right keep and bear arms.   Age Limits may apply; parental discretion is a defense.


I am not criticizing the author's opinion; it's only that he doesn't specify WHY he considers the subject's "Pose" to be unacceptable.  Unless and until he clarifies his statement, we are left to conjecture ... which is often based on assumptions of our own.

Who Runs March for Our Lives?

I recently posted an opinion boosting teenage protestors (although I disagree with them) and wondering who were the "adults" who micromanaged  The March.

The following article may provide some answers:

Sultan Knish: Who Runs March for Our Lives?:

Gun control activists wring their hands over the NRA. They claim that a special interest lobby is illegitimately thwarting the “will of the people”. Yet it’s the anti-gun groups that are invariably false fronts. It’s very clear who runs the NRA. But the latest fake anti-NRA group is a nebulous shadow. Out front are the high school students and out back are the professional activists.

Here is CNN's version.

Unnecessarily hyperbolic?

I think so.

I couldn't understand whatever the point the author was trying to make.  Could you?

Carl Ramey: On guard against 'stand your ground'

Ammunition Encoding

The NRA is making a (relatively) Big Splash on recent state efforts to require that every bullet, and every cartridge case, carry an unique serial number which (supposedly) can lead crime investigators to identify the person who purchased the ammunition used in a crime.

I say "supposedly', because the proposal has exactly zero chance of (a) aiding crime investigators and (b) being enacted for any purpose other than infringing on America's Second Amendment.

America's 1st Freedom | The Truth About Illinois’ Ammo Serial Numbering Scheme: Do you like to hunt or shoot? If so, hang onto your wallet, because ammunition could soon become prohibitively expensive if some Democrat lawmakers get their way.  An Illinois state representative wants to impose a scheme that’s not only been proven to be a multi-million-dollar failure at solving crimes, but could also make ammunition unaffordable for honest citizens*, while leaving criminals—who make millions dealing drugs, guns and (if this legislation is passed) ammunition—untouched.  And don’t just shrug if you don’t live in Illinois: As Fox News reports, similar bills are pending in at least 20 states.

The curious thing is, this isn't the first time this proposal has been aired.  And back in 2008, when it first was caught in the spotlight, I spent some serious blogging time exploring the whys and the wherefores.

Here is a link to my accumulated list of blog articles.  It's long, because the subject is complex, but it might mention a few issues which haven't been mentioned in a brief NRA warning message.  (Feel free to skim through it; not all of the issues are mentioned in only a single article.)

Here's a brief summary:

• It would be financially impossible for ammunition manufacturers to reliable encode each bullet with the case bearing the same unique identifying number ... let's call it "ID" for simplicity.*
• Packaging at the plant would be a vital, yet labor-intensive step because if one bullet/case combination got into a package with a different ID, the manufacturer would (probably) be liable to civil suit in case one round was used during the commission of a crime, and the wrong person was arrested based on this scheme.*
• Even that is a "mega-event', because the technology to match a bullet with the case bearing the same ID is not currently available.*
• ...WHICH IS EVEN MORE complex, because the original scheme proposed that the bullet would have the ID engraved on the BASE of the bullet ... which suggests that the "Quality Control Survey" would necessarily take place before the bullet was loaded into the case.  So much for Mass Production Technology.*
• The cost of such intensive quality control and inspection* (remember these are tiny little numbers, even it can be made to happen with the machinery) would require minutes per round, rather than the less-than-a-second progress which modern manufacturing technology provides.
• The cost of the complete cartridge would therefore be magnified* by a factor of  .. oh, a thousand?  A two-cent cartridge would cost you two dollars, because bullshit-factor.

Ultimately, manufacturers of complete ammunition would refuse to upset their entire industry, and therefore their ammunition would NOT be sold to states with this kind of absurd legal requirements.

WHICH IS THE POINT OF THE EXERCISE!

These states aren't trying to "Solve Crimes"*; they're trying to do an end-run on the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

(PS:  What happens when you reload your own ammunition?  In 'these states', there's a bit of a problem because you can't GET bullets with the same serial number as the cartridge case you're reloading!)

I'm pretty sure this is what the NRA is saying in their article, but they can't go into such fine detail as I can because (a) they're professionals, and (b) they assume everyone else can figure it out for themselves, and (c) they hope their warning-article will be read.

PDX confrontation: video blogger threatened, draws weapon

What do you do when confronted by an angry mob, and you're armed?

Is this a 'no win' situation?

Sources are limited, permissions to repost some of the references are refused.  You'll have to do the groundwork for yourselves, but be sure to visit the Victoria Taft connection.

Blogger Jailed for Defending 1A Rights and Life with 2A - The Truth About Guns:

A year ago, Mike Strickland was beaten and ended in the hospital for several months. His cameras were stolen, then returned with the drives wiped clean. He has video of the attack, but the authorities refused to prosecute. Recently, Mike was threatened by a mob of anarchists and Black Lives Matter activists again. This time he protected himself. Victoria Taft has written a well researched article, with video, that shows Mike Strickland defending himself from the mob in Portland. The link has it all. From victoriataft.com: Mike Strickland was arrested and charged in Portland for pulling a gun at a Black Lives Matter/anarchist protest when a mob converged on him. But now he sits in jail. As one person put it, “[Mike Strickland] is now a political prisoner in Multnomah County.”

also see the Washington Times write-up.

(As usual, all links open in a new window.)

Nobody Wants To Take Away Your Guns! (Except for the dangerous ones)

We've been hearing a lot about the media-inspired (and vaguely defined) "Assault Rifles".

In an attempt to accelerate the daily "Two Minutes Hate", gun-grabbers and the media have introduced a new term:
"High-powered rifles".

... gun control advocates from the West Coast are banding together to call for a 10-bullet magazine restriction and a ban on all high-powered rifles they call assault weapons. 

[emphasis added, click on the link]
OOoooooo ... scary!

But while the term "High-powered rifles" may scare little girls, it's suggestive of "Another Gun Ban Movement" ... which might be scarifying to little old men.

In truth, the Left, the 'Anti-Gunners' and other media whores are becoming more adept at inventing new political platforms from which they can attack The Embarassing Second Amendment.

As usual, there is no definition to the term.  In my home state, it was illegal illegal to hunt deer with a caliber less than .25* (which has since been changed in the game laws).

Now that the .223 and the .22-250, etc. are legal to hunt 'big game', does that mean that every deer rifle in America will be confiscated by the Gun Haters?

Well, that does seem to be the trend.

But remember: "Nobody Wants To Take Away Your GUNS!"

Just the dangerous ones.

Oh, and if you have a moment, see the under-the bar parts: 310

IS Trump a "Second Amendment Defender"?

Some hopefuls espouse the opinion that Donald Trump it the savior of the Second Amendment because he has said the things that we want to hear. Such as:

Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like “assault weapons,” “military-style weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to confuse people. What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans. Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice.

Second Amendment Voter's Guide: Trump vs. Clinton - Breitbart
Comments to the article (above) include:

• • • • • • • 
              
  • 

    
    
    
    
    
    

    van trump

    
    

    On Second Amendment rights... Trump slays Hillary.

    
    

    
    
  • 

    
    
    
    
    
    

     axle357

    
    

    on every issue Trump is miles ahead of hillary...anyone that would vote for any demarat is an anti american traitor...the dems want to destroy the country..Trump wants to save it.. › 

    
    
    
  • Wrong axle357
  • 
    
  • Trumps support for the 2nd Amendment is just a pose.  He's not "for" the 2nd; he's "against Hillary".
  • Whatever position she takes, he takes the diametrically opposite political position. (Read History)
  • 
    
  • I call that "Bold Talk for a One-eyed Fat Man", but Donald Trump is no Rooster Cogburn. 
  • 
    

And any man who thinks he can "John Wayne" himself into the white house is just an opportunistic liar.

You know, like all the other candidates for the past 50 years.

Chuck Behind The Curve: Brady Kicks Politico Arse

Is Chuck Schumer developing a conscience?
Why else would he be dragging his feet on introducing another means-nothing anti-gun bull?

Gun-control group pushes Schumer, he obliges - POLITICO:

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence had organized a conference call for Monday afternoon designed to call out Schumer — normally a reliable ally of gun-control groups — for not yet introducing the bill. In a statement announcing the call, the organization proclaimed: “Senator Schumer falls through on promise to Brady Campaign.”

Chuck was a little bit slow dancing to the Brady tune this week, so they called him to account for his intransigence.   It required only a mild threat to get Chuck back on the gun-grabber bandwagon.

Under heavy pressure from an influential gun-control group, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Monday that he would introduce legislation expanding universal background checks — following through on a months-long pledge to bring forward the bill.

One wonders: is he beginning to feel just a little bit used and abused?

One hopes so.

That's the usual fate of "Useful Idiots" when they exceed their "Sell-By Date".

H/T: Sipsy 

Unsafe At Any Speed: HillaryEMail

Clinton E-mail Trove Likely in Russian Hands | Frontpage Mag:

The mainstream media had sought to protect Hillary Clinton from revelations about Guccifer’s role in the hacking of her private e-mail server as long as it could. For example, NBC News reporter Cynthia McFadden had interviewed Guccifer from a Bucharest prison and elicited Guccifer’s first-hand account that Hillary’s server was “not safe at all.” NBC sat on this interview for more than a month. Only after Guccifer was extradited to the U.S. and appeared to be of interest to the FBI did NBC have to acknowledge the potential importance of what Guccifer had to say regarding Hillary’s unsafe server.

The repercussions of Hillary Clinton's "Not-So-Private" Email Server continue to resound,    Even though the  MSM gratuitously maintains its private job as Protector to the Queen, unsympathetic news/opinion websites dig deeper and discover increasingly ominous suggestions that her arrogance and self-perceived "I'm So Special I Don't Need To Obey The Rules" attitudes may have undermined the security of the United States.

If she is so mindful of her Liberal Preference as a candidate, how would she fare as the Leader of the Free World?

Barack Obama, you may soon be demoted to: "The SECOND Most Dangerous American President".


Hat Tip: Claire

 

PBS, "Armed in America" ... fair and balanced? You decide.

PBS, ‘Independent Lens’ to cover gun violence with special 2-night event | Newsday:

 “Armed in America” is theme for “Peace Officer,” “Armor of Light” Network says it is not taking an editorial stand on issue On Monday and Tuesday, PBS will devote most of its prime-time schedule to a two-night event built around the theme “Armed in America” as part the service’s ongoing coverage of gun violence. Two films under the “Independent Lens” banner will air, followed by town hall discussions moderated by former ABC News correspondent Michel Martin (now weekend anchor of NPR’s “All Things Considered”). (Both town halls were taped April 27 at Northland Church in Longwood, Florida.

PBS swears that it's not going to take an 'anti-gun' stance during these presentations.

I don't have television, or I would watch this just to hoot at their 'balanced presentation'.

But SOMEBODY ought to watch it!

When they call it "gun violence",  you can assume it will be talking about "Bad Guns!" and not about "Bad Social Violence".

And little time will be spent talking about the sociological aspects of violence; instead, they WILL be talking about Gun Control.

Because I gave up my television 20 years ago, if someone can find an online version of this 'series', I would be interested in watching what PBS has to say.

I thought I was The Only One ...

Clayton Cramer.: Foreign Policy Is A Pretty Straight-Laced Establishment Journal:

Rhodes and others around Obama keep on talking about doing all this novel thinking, playing from a new playbook, bucking the establishment thinking. 

But if that is the case, why have they given so much foreign policy power to two career hacks who never have had an original thought?
I mean, of course, Joe Biden and John Kerry. 

I guess the answer can only be that those two are puppets, and (as in Biden’s case) are given losing propositions like Iraq to handle.

I thought I was "The Only One" who recognized Joe and John  ... The Sock Puppet Twins ...as total clueless losers who never had a rational thought between them which was not handed down to them from their betters.

BTW: Joe ... in case none of your non-existent friends ever told you: letting loose a shotgun-charge of double-ought buckshot is NOT the best was to protect your home.

... when all you really need to protect your home is a pack of fire-crackers!
(They have the same effect, and they're a lot cheaper!)


And John .. you can take your thrown-away (unearned) medals from Viet Nam and find a place for them where the sun never shines.  Nobody thinks you were a war hero;  we all know you were a REMF!  Why don't you admit that you were fragged by your own crew?

Hillary's Rabid Anti-Gun Primary Campaign Stance Explained

The Smart Strategy Behind Hillary Clinton's Gun Control Stance | VICE | United States:

Hillary is 'violently' against guns; it says so here!   (click image for full-size view)

In one Clinton commercial, the daughter of slain Sandy Hook principal Dawn Hochsprung speaks of the “giant hole” left in her life by the murder of her mother. The daughter, Erica Smegielski, goes on to say that Clinton reminds her of her mother.

It isn't the guns; it's the votes.
By campaigning against guns in the primary, Hillary gains a disproportionate share  of delegate votes in states where anti-gun bias is important.  

Clarity Campaign Labs, a data strategy group that works primarily for Democrats but is not affiliated with either presidential campaign, has developed a model that assigns voters a score, out of 100, indicating their propensity to support gun control. The higher the number, the more likely the voter favors strong restrictions on firearms. According to John Hagner, a partner at the firm, in the upcoming primaries "the kind of Democrats who agree with Hillary on guns tend to live in areas that have the most delegates."

...

In Pennsylvania, surveys have put Clinton on pace to win again, even as her statements on gun policy stand in stark contrast with her 2008 positions. The Clinton of 2016 may alienate gun-owning Democrats in rural central Pennsylvania, but that swath of the state also offers the fewest delegates. By contrast, in Pennsylvania's second congressional district, which includes most of Philadelphia and awards seven Democratic delegates—more than any other district in the state—Clarity calculates a gun violence prevention score of 74.5. And the second district is surrounded by other delegate-rich districts with similarly high propensities to back gun reform. The pattern holds throughout the states that will vote over the next two weeks. 

(emphasis added)


Of course Hillary hasn't always held exactly the same opinions; in this interview from October in 2015, The HillaBeast had a softer view:

Liberal pigs more equal than Conservative pigs at SUNY campus

SUNY cancels debate after prof. objects to conservative participant:

“It’s part of our purpose to engage in the free exchange of ideas, even with people whose views we may disagree with,” he reminded them. “If we don’t prepare our students to engage with differing views while they are in college, then we have not prepared them for the world they are about to enter.”

But that "good intention" wasn't enough, so the Conservative member of the scheduled 'Debate' between speakers with opposing viewpoints ... was informed that he wasn't welcome there.

Ah, Grasshoppers; this is the lesson you must learn here!

Oh, just shoot me now!

Clinton visits Brooklyn churches to talk gun violence - NY Daily News:

Hillary Clinton stumped at black churches in Brooklyn Sunday, touting her tough stance on guns as she sought support in her home state’s primary against Bernie Sanders. Clinton also vowed to improve strained relations between police and black communities — and was joined by Nicole Bell, the fiance of police shooting victim Sean Bell, who endorsed her Sunday. “I have been privileged to meet with so many family members who have lost loved ones to gun violence sometimes at the hands of police, most times senseless random terrible violence,” Clinton said ,,,

Gun control in Oregon; Ginny Burdick

Gun control: Stymied in 2016, Oregon Democrats vow to try again in 2017 | OregonLive.com:

... And Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, at a forum hosted by the Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety, reiterated her support Wednesday for enacting gun-violence restraining orders. That idea, already in place in California, would create a court-sanctioned mechanism for removing guns from people believed to be at risk of harming themselves or others.

In case I didn't make myself clear in an earlier post ....

... any Oregon measure which Ginny Burdick supports is certain to be a measure which undermines the constitutional freedoms of Oregonians.  Or, in other words, a lie.

Just Saying.

And I'm not the only one.

Lib Dems LIKE CDC bias, want to resurrect it!

Senate Democrats: End ban on CDC gun violence research | News - Home:
Oregon's Ron Wyden joins mrore [sic] than a dozen colleagues in plea
 From KTVZ.COM news sources (March 23, 2016)

WASHINGTON -Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and 16 fellow Democratic senators are urging Senate appropriators to dedicate funds for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research into the causes and prevention of gun violence..

 (Warning: Ron Wyden is a POLITICIAN who never knew a cause which couldn't advance his political career.  He came to my front door once, decades ago when I lived in Portland, asking for my vote.  I told him I didn't want him to represent me, because his values were not mine.  He thanked me for my honest opinion and walked away ... across my front-yard grass instead of using the sidewalk.  That's the kind of mustard he's made of.   But that's just my political, and personal, opinion.)

“We must take this important step because only the United States government is in a position to establish an integrated public-health research agenda to understand the causes of gun violence and identify the most effective strategies for prevention,” the senators wrote in the letter last week.

Decoded, that means that the Liberal Gun-Grabber Contingent of the U.S. Senate has identified the CDC as a Federal entity which is eager to advance the anti-gun agenda, and DEMS love the things the CDC had to say about guns .... until the Senate ceased funding their political bias.

Read the article for a full list of the "Fellow Travellers".  I'm sure you'll recognize most of the names.

Their names all begin with ("D-****").

For example:

Last year, Wyden, along with Markey, introduced bicameral legislation with Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., to fund research at the CDC on gun violence prevention and firearms safety. The legislation calls for $10 million each year for six years.

You can see that they're all of the same political bent, determined to rewrite America to fit their personal politics, even if a significant percentage of their 'constituents' despise them and their politics.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat

Other voices: Lawmakers, OK gun violence research plan:

The San Francisco Chronicle published this editorial on March 19: 

 The raft of new gun policies sweeping the nation — arm teachers, arm students, flash your piece under "open carry" laws — share one trait: There is not a shred of evidence they work to reduce gun carnage.
That is because Congress essentially has banned federal spending on gun violence prevention research for more than 20 years.

(sigh)

I've addressed this issue SO often, (at least twice in the past 2 years) you're tired of hearing about it.
And I'm tired of writing about it.   But the Liberals keep coming back with the Big Lie ... if they say it often enough, loud enough, some people will believe it.

The Truth Is:
The CDC was defunded after the NRA notified the government that they (CDC) had allowed their own personal bias to skew their (federally funded) research findings on Gun Control.

The CDC was free to publish any opinions that seemed reasonable to them, but they were no longer authorized to use federal funding to finance that research.   NOBODY told them they couldn't continue the research, or publish 'biased' reports.

But they were weren't going to be paid for their Liberal Lies; not by the Feds, anyway.  (And they're a Federal Agency, so 'private donations' are frowned on.)

NO OTHER research facility ... either Federal or State ... was affected by this de-funding.

If California wishes to fund research which will prove conclusively (to them) that Guns Have No Redeeming Value, they're welcome to have at it.  Unfortunately, "The Land of Fruits and Nuts" has lost the cachet which was originally ascribed to CDC, so nobody is going to pay much attention to them because we already know that the Second Most Liberal State In The Union is determined to fund any measures which will undermine the 2nd Amendment Rights of their citizens.

 It's all about mind control; not gun control.  And everybody knows that.

---

I've spent the last 6 or 7 years training new shooters who want to compete in Practical Pistol competition.  All seem to be just honest, good-hearted people who want to find  A Place To Shoot, and to compare their skills against other like-minded people.

And yet, there are people who want to renew the mantra that "Guns Are Bad".

Guns are not bad.  There are some people who use them for bad purposes, but I'm fortunate in that my exposure to 100+ NEW friends a year hasn't revealed these 'negative values' in any of the fine folks who take a day out of their life to meet people with similar interests.

And as for those who are determined to see only the down-side of private civilian firearms ownership?

To quote my old Drill Sergeant:

Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Except, of course for my moments later article about Senator Ron!

Fear and Loathing on .. college campus?

COMMENTARY: NRA stifling academic freedom:

The gun lobby has seized on this environment of academic stifling, promoting firearms as the answer to an array of problems on campuses and beyond. Don’t want to get raped? Carry a gun, or it’s your own fault. The best way to prevent an active-shooter situation? Everyone pack heat.

Apparently, the "people" on college campus in South Jersey are not only outraged, but actively revolted by the proposition that students, staff and faculty are now legally 'permitted' to exercise their Second Amendment rights on the grounds of the college campus.

Oh, bad.
Not only bad, but WAY bad!

That conservative forces have long sought to squash dissent and curtail rigorous academic debate on campuses is far from a secret. From the militarization of many campuses, academic repression of faculty, excessive and difficult-to-navigate bureaucracies, limitations on free speech and more, college students, staff and faculty members today face many challenges as they seek to explore, debate and take action on critical and difficult issues.

Huh?  What the HEY??
College instructors, teachers, professors and other academicians no longer feel safe when they are brainwashing  drilling instructing teaching their students in the Next Generation of Progressiveness?  Oh, that's just SO bad!

Texas passed a campus-carry law that is set to take effect on Aug. 1. Already, professors at the University of Houston were told that once the new law is effective, they might want to “be careful discussing sensitive topics,” “drop certain topics from your curriculum,” “ ‘Not go there’ if you sense anger,” “limit students’ access off hours,” “go to appointment-only office hours” and “only meet ‘that student’ in controlled circumstances.”

Oh.  Okay, I get it.

Since students, staff and faculty are now allowed to carry guns on campus, the faculty (the staunch conservators of "Liberal Thought" (and no other) are worried that if they preach a gospel which is not kindly received by their drones students,  said students might respond by shooting their professors!

(Yeah, right.  Like THAT is going to happen! Ammunition is expensive, y'know?  Hammers are cheaper.)

And they (the staff and faculty on South Jersey campuses) are worried that "conservative forces" might "squash dissent and curtail rigorous debate on campuses"?


And "they" (supposedly, the students) might register their dissent by shooting their erudite/liberal/progressive professors?

[Well, I guess that getting SHOT might occasionally have an adverse effect on Progressive brainwashing instruction. But in reality, Progressives are so head-in-the-clouds  clueless, chances are that they would not even notice their colleagues being murdered in the next room.  They are THAT distanced from reality .... and the level of true "intellectual thought" can, as a consequence, go no-where but UP!]

And this is "A Bad Thing"?

Or is this just another version of "... rigorous academic debate ...."?

Kitchen/Heat/Exit strategy?

Frankly, I fail to perceive the problem.

Okay, okay;  it may result in a slight winnowing of the faculty, but still;

 where's the Down Side?