You can find the link to my NRA News interview on Cam and Company with Cam Edwards here. (My interview starts at the 1:46 hour, 22 second mark.)
Here’s the link to my Townhall article is you haven’t read it yet!
Below is an excerpt:
In a recent column in the Atlantic titled “How Guns Could Censor College Classrooms,” Firmin DeBrabander argues the mere presence of firearms on campus will hurt intellectual discourse in the classroom.
DeBrabander, who teaches philosophy at Maryland Institute College of Art, writes, “Campus carry will make students and faculty less inclined to engage in the critical intellectual work that must take place in the classroom.”
He adds, “I fear that campus carry will make students and faculty less inclined to engage in the critical intellectual work that must take place in the classroom, the courageous inquiry and experimentation American democracy requires.”
Since when does the presence of guns on campus pose a threat to free speech? Why should this professor fear the elimination of intellectual discourse in the classroom if students choose to responsibly exercise their Second Amendment rights? American universities are supposed to be marketplaces of ideas, not backdrops of zealous anti-gun, anti-freedom bigotry.
The misconceptions about gun owners purported by this individual are as delusional as they are unfounded.
Update I: Shared by Students for Concealed Carry on their Facebook page!
In light of SCOTUS’ ruling legalizing same-sex unions, or SSM, nationwide today, I will say this: I will still hold my view that marriage is between a man and a woman. I’ve spent many years researching both sides, reading opposite views, and reaching a conclusion long ago that this is how I feel. No government or judicial decision will coerce me into changing my view on marriage. Neither should you. Does this mean I have malice towards those who hold an opposite view? Quite the contrary. Americans are free to believe whatever they want without fear of retribution. We should have mutual respect for our differing opinions while respectfully disagreeing. (Who knows when this mutual tolerance will be realized.) That’s a beautiful thing. Debate should be encouraged.
There are several things to reflect on moving forward: will religious liberty be respected? Will dissenting opinions still be respected or will the speech police silence us? Will churches be coerced into performing SSM against their will? Will businesses be shut down? Time will tell.
This decision illuminates how important and more successful we can be in advocating for civil society without government or quick legislative fixes. We need to have a coherent, thoughtful, fair discussion on marriage on the cultural front.
What say you? Agree? Disagree? Can both sides co-exist or will one ideology – that of our opponents- be shoved down our throats? Weigh in below!
Yesterday we published an interview with John Hopkins student Andrew Guernsey up at Counter Cultured.
Here’s an excerpt:
The First Amendment is under siege in our country today. From articulating support for natural marriage to being politically incorrect, respectful disagreement over issues and intellectual diversity are strongly discouraged today.
One college student, Andrew Guernsey, has gone out of his way to challenge the “tolerance brigade” at Johns Hopkins University following its student government’s decision to bar Chick-fil-A from campus. As a result, this incident has garnered a lot of media attention. Andrew penned an op-ed in National Review and subsequently appeared on Fox & Friends to discuss why campus statists are wrong to suppress campus free speech.
I recently interviewed Andrew to learn more about what happened on his campus and how he has played a role in fostering a discussion of socially conservative ideas with his peers.
It’s quite saddening the American flag has been the subject of intense scrutiny of late…First, students at a University of California campus near my hometown deemed the flag “offensive” and attempted to ban it (which has been unsuccessful, thankfully). Now, a Virginia photographer is receiving threats for photographing a picture of a Navy veteran holding his newborn child with a flag (it doesn’t appear to evoke or suggest any desecration of the flag, IMHO).
Yes, the Constitution protects free speech – even stupid speech – and people are within their right to criticize the flag – however, they will be (rightfully) subjected to criticism and publicly shamed for conduct or statements made about the flag that are unbecoming.
However, the lack of reverence for Old Glory today is troubling. People view it as a symbol of “nationalism,” “sexism,” and “imperialism” thanks to indoctrination in our schools. Hell, they revile it and even have a more positive view of the Soviet flag and other communist symbols. (Sigh.)
The American flag doesn’t simply comprise of stars and stripes or the colors red, white, and blue. It symbolizes freedom, sacrifice, and perseverance. It is a symbol of hope, of the triumph of good over evil, and of boundless opportunities. Millions of people have died for this country and for our right to express ourselves. If you have gripes with the flag or have qualms with the American way of life, North Korea and Russia will happily welcome you with open arms.
Want to be offended about something? Look at our government and how gargantuan it is. Legal plunder is disgusting; patriotism is not.
My two cents…
Ann Barnhardt takes Graham’s recent remarks on free speech into context and accordingly delivers him a dose of reality.