The Point: Engage and Debate? Are You Kidding?

It’s not her job. For the Colson Center, I’m John Stonestreet with The Point.

Recently, Oxford Professor Louise Richardson offered advice for students who complained of tutors expressing opinions that were “against homosexuality.”

“I’m sorry,” she said, “but my job isn’t to make you feel comfortable. Education is not about being comfortable. If you don’t like his views, you challenge them . . . Work out how you can persuade him to change his mind. It is difficult, but it is absolutely what we have to do.”

What? Engage? Debate? On a college campus? Oxford LGBTQ+ campaign prefers silencing. “Homophobia is not an opinion,” their campaign wrote in a letter. “Oxford should …not tolerate discrimination, instead of giving it the credibility of an academic debate.”

The group then demanded an apology.

But it seems none will be forthcoming. Oxford so far is standing by the professor. Let’s hope they continue, and American colleges take note. Otherwise, an Oxford degree, as one commenter suggested, won’t be worth the ultra-soft or recycled paper that it’s printed on.

 

 

 

Resources


Comment Policy: Commenters are welcome to argue all points of view, but they are asked to do it civilly and respectfully. Comments that call names, insult other people or groups, use profanity or obscenity, repeat the same points over and over, or make personal remarks about other commenters will be deleted. After multiple infractions, commenters may be banned.

  • Phoenix1977

    “Oxford so far is standing by the professor.”
    It hardly matters. Homophobia is forbidden by law in the UK and if only one student decides to file an official complaint at the University they are bound by law to act on it. If they don’t, and the student files a complaint with the police, Oxford will be viewed as an accomplice for not dealing with the situation while knowing the law was violated.

    • Scott

      Fortunately opinions cannot be forced by law. Also, people are not required to affirm another’s sexual practices. They are allowed to voice their differing opinions as well.

      Homophobia: “An extreme and irrational fear of homosexuality and homosexual people.”

      Arachnophobia: “An extreme or irrational fear of spiders.”

      Like any phobia, Homophobia is not something that can be forbidden by law.

      Just because I do not affirm LGBT sexual assertions, does not mean that I have an extreme or irrational fear of them. Nor does not mean that I will act out in oppressive or hateful ways towards them. It simply means that I do not agree with or affirm them.

      • Phoenix1977

        “Fortunately opinions cannot be forced by law.”
        That might be true in the US but not in the majority of the countries in Europe.

        “Also, people are not required to affirm another’s sexual practices.”
        But are required to refrain from any negative comments about LGBTs. That’s true in both the UK as in the Netherlands (and several other European countries).

        “They are allowed to voice their differing opinions as well.”
        European countries don’t have a First Amendment. In our Constitutions there is no such thing as limitless freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in Europe only extends as far as the law allows it to extend. In the UK that means negative remarks on LGBTs are considered homophobia and hate speech and therefor punishable by law, just as it is in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany and Spain.

        • jason taylor

          So negative remarks against homosexuals hurt you so very much that you must needs appeal to either the state or the rabble to protect your feelings? If your feelings are that important to you why not simply take your own responsibility for them and invite your offender to a fight club. If you cannot do that you should just grin and bear it. For some reason we seem to be bearing with you on site.

          • Phoenix1977

            Why would I take care of it myself if I have the law and the courts on my side?

        • jason taylor

          There is a distinct unmanliness in trying to get state protection for one’s feelings as if one wanted the advantages of a dueling society while taking none of the risks, and making sure by the use of overwhelming force that you continue to do so. You cannot complain about bullys while bullying people.

          • Phoenix1977

            We’re bullying our bullies so that’s ok.

          • Steve

            Good that you admit that it is bullying at least.
            While you’re at it you could also admit that it is stereotyping an entire group of people.

          • Phoenix1977

            You mean like Christians do to virutally all non-Christians?

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            Phoenix, you know the rule about bashing groups. Tone it down.

          • Steve

            How can you make that claim?
            You cannot extrapolate from your limited experience to implicate billions of people.

          • Phoenix1977

            True. I can, however, extrapolate from history and the experience of members in the LGBT community.

          • Scott

            That is not fair… I do not bully you or anyone else for that matter.

          • Phoenix1977

            I told you before, you are a rare exception and so far I haven’t found another one like you.

          • Scott

            Thank you for this humbling compliment. I have found many more Christians better than I and willing to show love first though. All of us condemn sin, but take Jesus seriously and reserve final judgement to Him… we believe it is our job to show His love so that all those He loves find Him in eternity.

            I think there is a big misconception about what a Christian really is. Many non-Christians get their definition of a Christian via “piecemeal.” They look at someone they perceive to be Christian and define the term based on what they see “Christians” doing. There are several problems with this method of judgement. One major problem is that many non-Christians look for the negative and ignore the positive. Their bias places blinders to all the good because they do not want to find it. So they look for the bad (only), which is easy to see and leads us right to the next and most important point. The main problem is that people are not Jesus Christ. As we have discussed before, people are like rusty cups that ultimately contaminate the pure water (of the gospel) poured into them. Jesus is the only lens by which Christianity should be viewed.

            Christ himself said in Luke 24-25:

            “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’

            “But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’”

            I believe this is a message to us Christians… we must look inward first and do our very best to live into Christ’s love for us. Legalism won’t get us there. Humans are incapable of divine righteousness. We must recognize our own flaws and recognize that our God was willing to pay the price for them. We must recognize that in the parable of The Narrow Door, Jesus is asking us to do the same for our fellow brothers and sisters who don’t know God. To (as Jesus did) meet them in love and invite them to the feast. We are asked to do this out of the same compassion Christ had for us when he suffered the cross. If I didn’t care about your eternity Phoenix, I wouldn’t be living as Christ commanded… I would essentially be ignoring His sacrifice for me because to Him, I am you.

          • jason taylor

            Is it you doing so or is it running to your Big Brother for help?

          • Phoenix1977

            Does it matter?

        • Scott

          Yikes… glad I don’t live there. Negative comments are one thing… name calling and provocative statements incite anger. Differing opinions should never be “punishable by law” though. Since no one can prove that God does or does not exist, ample space must be made for opposing perspectives.

    • Steve

      So what is the definition of “homophobia” and who decides what it is?
      If I say I am in opposition to gay marriage, is that homophobia? In the UK can I be punished for saying that, my opinion? Can I be punished for thinking it?
      After all, I am not stating anything about the gay people, just the fact that I think marriage is between one man and one woman. In fact, if gay people want to be with each other, it is none of my business. But to demand to change the definition and nature of a long-standing institution is my business. That is when I am being forced to agree with, not just accept, a certain ideology.
      So who really decides what can be said? That is the scary part. If you start limiting free speech we go down a dangerous path.
      We saw in the 20th century in the murderous totalitarian regimes what happens when free speech is taken away. Be careful what you ask for Phoenix.
      I completely agree that there is far too much hate in the world. The way to change that is not through legislation or imprisonment but by changing the hearts of those who may hate us.

      • Phoenix1977

        “So what is the definition of “homophobia” and who decides what it is?”
        In the UK every negative comment on homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism is considered homophobia and punishable by law.

        “If I say I am in opposition to gay marriage, is that homophobia? In the UK can I be punished for saying that, my opinion?”
        Yes, because opposition to marriage equality is considered negative towards the LGBT community and therefor is homophobia. And that is punishable by law in the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France and Spain.

        “So who really decides what can be said? That is the scary part. If you start limiting free speech we go down a dangerous path.”
        In Europe there is no such thing as limitless free speech, nor limitless freedom of religion. All basic rights are limited in our Constitutions one way or the other. In the Dutch Constitution all basic rights are limited by the sentence “… within everyone’s responsibility according to the law” meaning all rights end when they violate the law. The French Constitution does not even mention freedom of religion (because France officially does not recognize freedom of religion, a remnant of the French Revolution) and states the government has the right to limit someone’s freedom of speech.

        “The way to change that is not through legislation or imprisonment but by changing the hearts of those who may hate us.”
        Yeah, we have given up on that. We are tired of waiting for you people to come around and accept us for who and what we are. We’ll settle for legislation.

        • Steve

          Yes, I know what the laws say. What is the law and what is right is what is being debated here.
          Would you think it would be ok to have a law limiting speech against Christians?
          You malign Christians a lot here on this discussion board. What if you could get locked up for it? So saying anything negative about something is illegal?
          Do you want a society where everyone is forced to agree or too scared to speak up?
          There are degrees to which speech is inciting violence vs just expressing a disagreement.
          For instance, saying we should kill an entire group of people is a lot different than saying our religion is against people being married. Wouldn’t you agree?
          What if it were against the law to speak out against slavery, a legal practice centuries ago? William Wilberforce would have been jailed instead of the hero to millions.
          I personally disagree with almost everything you say and yet I would stand up and fight for your right to say it.
          I would do that for two reasons:
          1. if your rights are taken away, mine are likely to go next
          2. I may learn a different perspective from you. Perhaps I think I am 100% correct but then learn even a little bit from you and find out that maybe I’m not 100%right. I have learned by reading your posts about some of the pain and anger that LGBT people have towards some in the Christian community. That knowledge is good.
          Breakpoint.org does not have to continue to let you post; and yet they do despite the fact that you slam Christianity with nearly everything you write. I have to hand it to them for allowing the debate to continue.
          You do realize that once speech starts being limited there is no way to know where it goes. Take a good look at the 20th century totalitarian regimes and you will see.

    • disqus_k86nMKUXNB

      Oxford College of Emory University is in Oxford, Georgia, USA. Thankfully, Americans are still fighting to preserve our rights and freedoms. When you sacrifice freedom for safety, you get neither freedom nor safety.

      • Gina Dalfonzo

        The Oxford in this piece is the U.K. Oxford.

  • Scott

    “”You do realize that once speech starts being limited there is no way to know where it goes.”

    I understand what you’re saying but I don’t nesecarily agree with it. For example, racism and discrimination was acceptable due to the First Amendment, until the Supreme Court upheld the Civil Rights Act (and other anti-discrimination laws) in order to protect minorities in society. To protect people sometimes the rights of others need to be limited.”

    The Civil Rights Act did not limit speech or in any way change the First Amendment. It was designed to protect civil rights of people who were being denied those rights. Like employers discriminating when hiring and other basic human rights. To protect people, rights were defined, expanded and enforced.

  • Scott

    “If Christians want to be taken serious again in the world they need to start leading by example. Otherwise it will always remain a case of “Do as I say, not as I do” and that won’t work anymore in the 21st century.”

    Except It isn’t us Christians that should be telling anyone to do anything. As you say, we are supposed to lead by example and that example should point to God. There are plenty of us who are not perfect, but live according to our love for God and His love for all of humanity. We see those who live in open rebellion against God and know that they can only save themselves (through Jesus)… but would do anything to help them.

    My apologetics may not be enough for you… but I will not stop showing the love Christ showed me. : – )

    • Phoenix1977

      “Except It isn’t us Christians that should be telling anyone to do anything.”
      And yet most Christians I met are full of talk and very little example. Who preach love and understanding on Sundays and drive a knife in your back on Monday. Or who talk about giving to charity but are to cheap to put their own money where their mouth is.

      “but I will not stop showing the love Christ showed me”
      Except the love of your Christ means very little to those who have suffered at the hand of Christians. We have experienced the danger we are in if Christians are in control and we will never allow that to happen again.

      • Gina Dalfonzo

        Okay, we’re getting into bashing again. I’m going to ask you to stop there.

        • Phoenix1977

          How is stating my experiences “bashing”?

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            When you start using your experiences to portray Christians as a group as evil, that’s bashing. You’re perfectly free to think we’re all evil, but I don’t want any group bashed here — Christians or any other group.

          • Scott

            That’s an interesting point Gina.

            Do you think all Christians are evil Phoenix? I would be included in that group and I do not treat you with contempt or bear you ill will.

            The point I have been trying to illustrate is that Christians do not want to change your behavior for the sake of their own morality. Morality isn’t ours to enforce. Left to our own devices (without God), we are no different than you. What we hope for is your (all those who don’t believe in God) salvation. Like I have said before, it is an invitation… not a directive.

        • Scott

          Phoenix might make his statement and it may seem like bashing… but his statement gets to a VERY important part of our faith. All Christians should never fall victim to self-righteousness. Jesus made this point over and over again to the pharisees.

  • Scott

    Perhaps its because you push them away?

    • Phoenix1977

      More likely they were never there to begin with, because I never met them when I considered myself a Christian either.

      • Scott

        I wish you had met one… Did you hear about the gunman in Las Vegas?

        • Phoenix1977

          Yeah, I heard about him. What does that have to do with what we were discussing?

          • Scott

            Nothing… just wondered what your thoughts were?

  • Scott

    “And, as a direct result, other people’s rights were limited. After all, you can no longer walk to the front of the waiting line, demanding to be served before the black people waiting there.”

    Actually this is not the case. Rather it was common practice and people looked the other way. No one had the right to do it, they just did it because they were trying their very best to oppress the African American population. As I said before, the Civil Rights Act upheld president Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation by defining, expanding and enforcing (by law) the rights that the African Americans were supposed to already have. It essentially stopped people from violating the rights of African Americans. Prejudice is still a problem… but I do believe it is slowly dwindling.

    The N-word is another matter. Anyone is free to say it… however if a white man were to use it against an African American (especially in anger), he might not like the consequences.

    I volunteer as a football (american football) coach and our team is mostly made up of African American kids. Unfortunately I hear them use this word all the time against each other and it breaks my heart. All of the older African American men that are part of the program prohibit the use of the word and we do our best to enforce the ban of the word, but to no avail. The kids have no idea why that word is so repulsive because they live in a time where that word is no longer used as it was 60 years ago. They learn about in school… but do not (with a rare exception in our city) experience it. The form of racism they experience now is different.

  • Phoenix1977

    “non-Christians are no different.”
    The difference is we don’t claim to be morally better.

    • Scott

      Actually this is important.

      Christians shouldn’t claim that either… that is why I don’t. God’s moral laws are better. Christians just want others to orient their lives towards God so that they may come to know Christ and gain eternal salvation. Part of that process is doing our best to adhere to God’s moral laws. Recognizing them and orienting our lives towards those laws does not make us “morally better.” We still fall short. Repentance and prayer are a big part of our faith journey as well. Any Christian who claims self righteousness has missed Christ’s message. Righteousness is a gift given and not attainable by human effort.

      The crux for eternal salvation and all of humanity rests on the choice God gives us… to accept Him or not.

  • Scott

    Thats all fine and dandy… until God turns the burners on. Then He will remove one from the fire and boil the other. ; – ) Sorry, couldn’t resist your metaphor.

    You are right, Christians should orient their own lives… but not in an effort to achieve perfection, as we know that is not possible. Salvation is our goal.

    • Phoenix1977

      “Christians should orient their own lives… but not in an effort to achieve perfection, as we know that is not possible.”
      My point exactly. But as long as you don’t have your own life in order, why meddle with other’s?

      “Salvation is our goal.”
      Fine with me, but that is YOUR goal. My goals in life are different, just like many other people have different goals in life. When I was in Vegas last May I met a man who had as goal to become the heaviest man alive. From a medical point of view I think that is a very bad goal but that man is an adult and quite capable to make his own choices. Unless he comes to me and asks for my help I have no right to interfere. Just like Christians don’t have the right to interfere in other people’s lives without being invited to do so.

      • Scott

        If I am depressed, I have the right to walk off a bridge. If no one were to interfere I might carry out that right to my own death. If someone were to interfere, I may not like it because I am depressed and wish to die… but say they save my life anyway and point me towards the help I need. I then, after some years, go on to experience great joy in life. I might then look back in gratitude.

        This story may be of some relevance… until we are faced with eternity.

  • Scott

    You don’t have hunters over there?

    • Phoenix1977

      Hunting is done by government officials in Europe. Private hunting has been outlawed on the European mainland since before the Second World War. The only European country that still allows hunting (mainly fox hunting for the nobility) is the UK.

      • Scott

        Cool… learn something new every day! : – )

  • Scott

    I am not a gun owner myself. I do have friends that hunt and enjoy it when they give me venison… what do you say about owning a gun for hunting? In our area, the the natural predators for deer have long been absent. Without hunting, the deer would over populate causing many other problems.

    I think you will see bump stocks banned in the near future. No doubt gun violence is a problem, mainly in our inner cities… (with the exception of Vegas) the majority of gun violence happens with illegal firearms.

    • Phoenix1977

      “what do you say about owning a gun for hunting?”
      When you own a gun for hunting it’s only a small step to use it to “control” other problems you encounter.

      “In our area, the the natural predators for deer have long been absent.”
      And why are those natural predators no longer there? Could it be they were hunted out of existence?

      “Without hunting, the deer would over populate causing many other problems.”
      There are other ways to control the deer population. You can even catch them alive and relocate them.

      “the majority of gun violence happens with illegal firearms.”
      The problem is not whether the guns themselves are legal or illegal. It’s the mindset about firearms.
      In Europe firearms are only allowed for police officers, the army, certain levels of security guards and wildlife rangers. Everyone else is not allowed to own a gun and because of that we don’t think it as normal to have or to use a gun.
      In the US having a gun is considered normal and even a basic right, according to your Constitution. As a result no one thinks it strange for someone to own, carry or even use a gun. Unless that mindset changes people will see little problem with owning a gun and using it to solve their problems.

      • Scott

        “In the US having a gun is considered normal and even a basic right, according to your Constitution. As a result no one thinks it strange for someone to own, carry or even use a gun. Unless that mindset changes people will see little problem with owning a gun and using it to solve their problems.”

        For me it would be easy to say it should be illegal to own a gun. I live in an urban setting. There are however vast rural areas left in the US and people who depend on their guns for survival.

        Also… gun violence would not cease if law abiding citizens could no longer own one. Criminals would still obtain them same as illegal narcotics. It would be fantastic if we could live in a world free of war, weapons, evil, hate, pollution, oppression, crime, drugs, and every other flaw of human nature we could list… alas, history has proven we can’t “auto-correct.” : – )

        • Phoenix1977

          “There are however vast rural areas left in the US and people who depend on their guns for survival.”
          Really? Why? So they shoot their WIFI emitters when the signal is down? Or to hunt canned ham? Or perhaps to defend themselves from a carton of milk that’s gone bad?
          It’s not the 1800s anymore. There is absolutely no reason why people not involved in law enforcement should have a gun.

          “gun violence would not cease if law abiding citizens could no longer own one. Criminals would still obtain them same as illegal narcotics.”
          True, but all gun owners would automatically be criminals and can therefor be dealt with.

          Fact: in Europe it’s virtually impossible to get a gun.
          Fact: in Europe we have virtually no mass shootings
          Fact: in the US it’s easy to get a gun.
          Fact: mass shootings in the US are not considered news worthy anymore in Europe.
          You do the math …

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            Tell me this, Phoenix: Do you think a woman alone has the right to defend herself against a sexual predator? And if so, do you think she should have to let him get close enough to stab him or try jiu-jitsu on him (assuming she even knows the latter)?

          • Phoenix1977

            For one, how do you know he’s a sexual predator if he’s far enough you need a gun to shoot him?
            Second, ever heard of non-lethal weapons like mace or a taser?

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            Trust me, it’s not that hard to figure out. And when it’s my life and safety at stake and not yours, I’ll choose the weapon, thank you very much.

          • Phoenix1977

            So basically you don’t want to give up your guns, even though there are non-lethal alternatives.
            Like I said, a change in mindset is needed.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            I do carry pepper spray quite often. But you’re right that I don’t want to give up my gun (singular, not plural). Which do you think is likely to prove more effective against a rapist: a taser or a gun?

          • Phoenix1977

            A taser, because you can use that on short range, unlike a gun.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            Well, Phoenix, if you and I should ever get attacked, you use your taser, I’ll use my gun, and we’ll see who comes out alive. 🙂

          • Scott

            “Like I said, a change in mindset is needed.”

            This is your opinion, but until Gina commits a crime with her firearm, it is not valid.

          • Phoenix1977

            All use of lethal weaponry should be a crime if a non-lethal alternative is available.

          • Scott

            Unless there is a chance non-lethal alternative cannot stop the rapist (or other type of perpetrator).

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            Scott, in case you missed it, I said elsewhere that we’re all getting back on topic now. No more guns, no more booze. This is now a dry, non-lethal thread. 🙂

          • Scott

            Wait… I thought the topic was Engage and Debate?

            Sorry… I will abstain. : – )

          • Scott

            “It’s not the 1800s anymore. There is absolutely no reason why people not involved in law enforcement should have a gun.”

            Perhaps you didn’t know but there are communities of people in Alaska (and in the lower 49) that have no electricity or grocery stores… or even roads. More common in the lower 49 are people that do not have enough money to purchase groceries and a large part of what they eat depends on what they can grow trap or shoot.

            “”gun violence would not cease if law abiding citizens could no longer own one. Criminals would still obtain them same as illegal narcotics.” True, but all gun owners would automatically be criminals and can therefor be dealt with.”

            If many people already illegally obtain guns and the law can’t seem to regulate that, what good is it to take away guns from those who legally own and harm no one? Wouldn’t that just make it more dangerous for those who abide by the law?

            Fact: in Europe it’s virtually impossible to get a gun.

            Okay.

            Fact: in Europe we have virtually no mass shootings

            What about the 2015 Paris attacks and the 2011 Norwegian attack? Those are just two I can think of quickly.

            Fact: in the US it’s easy to get a gun.

            Yes, comparative to the rest of the world… Germany and possibly Australia as exceptions.

            Fact: mass shootings in the US are not considered news worthy anymore in Europe.

            This statement is not a fact… it is opinion.

            You do the math … Okay.

          • Phoenix1977

            “Perhaps you didn’t know but there are communities of people in Alaska (and in the lower 49) that have no electricity or grocery stores… or even roads. More common in the lower 49 are people that do not have enough money to purchase groceries and a large part of what they eat depends on what they can grow trap or shoot.”
            Than perhaps something needs to be done to the infrastructure in Alaska and the American social security system …

            “If many people already illegally obtain guns and the law can’t seem to regulate that, what good is it to take away guns from those who legally own and harm no one?”
            For one, those who legally own them can still do harm. Look at Vegas.
            Second, making firearms illegal will change the view people have on firearms. So in about a generation people will develop a different view on firearms. That’s what happened in Europe as well. And it will also make it easier for the police to act on the possession of firearms. After all, if firearms are not considered a normal item anymore the public will have less problems with the police making sure firearms are off the streets.

            “What about the 2015 Paris attacks and the 2011 Norwegian attack? Those are just two I can think of quickly.”
            Both shootings are considered terrorist attacks. I doubt you can stop those with any type of law. Mass shootings like the high school shootings or shootings like Las Vegas are extremely rare in Europe. There was a high school shooting in Germany in 2006 and a shooting in a Dutch mall in 2011. And those are the only mass shootings American style we have had in Europe this century.

            “Yes, comparative to the rest of the world… Germany and possibly Australia as exceptions.”
            In Germany you have to go through extensive background checks and you will be monitored for as long as you have a gun registered. You basically give up your right to privacy. Australia I don’t know, to be honest.

            “This statement is not a fact… it is opinion.”
            No, it’s not. The Las Vegas shooting was mentioned in our news programs, but not in the top 3 subjects of that day. It didn’t make the headlines of the papers either. It was mentioned on page 3 or 4. And most people in Europe react the same to these shootings in the US: “That’s what you get if you make guns readily available to everyone”.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            “Second, making firearms illegal will change the view people have on firearms. So in about a generation people will develop a different view on firearms.”

            We once made the sale of alcoholic beverages illegal in this country. Ever hear about that? Remember what the result was?

          • Phoenix1977

            “We once made the sale of alcoholic beverages illegal in this country. Ever hear about that? Remember what the result was?”
            Yes, I remember. There are, however, 3 very big differences between gun control and the Prohibition:
            1. Among the general population there was no support for the Prohibition while the support for gun control is growing.
            2. Alcohol doesn’t kill dozens of people at the time while gun violence does.
            3. The Volstead Act came to be through heavy lobbying of small but influential Christian factions, determined to return the US to a life of sobriety and virtue. I don’t have to tell you how successful those factions would have been today, right?

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            You might want to go back and reread your history books. Much of the general population did indeed support Prohibition. The Eighteenth Amendment (which was what actually established Prohibition; the Volstead Act was about enforcement) could not have taken effect if they did not.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            Also, I’ve realized that we’ve all — myself included — gotten wildly off-topic, so we’ll leave it there and get back to the matter at hand. Thanks.

  • Gina Dalfonzo

    Take it from one who’s always lived in America: You would be hard put to it to find an American today who DIDN’T consider Prohibition a gigantic error in judgment!

    On the rest, I will let you have the last word, because as I said, it’s past time that we all got back on topic. The subjects of guns and alcohol on this thread are hereby closed.