A professor in West Virginia provides yet another example of the inescapable reality that the real threat to America, beyond a complicit media, is likely to be found in college classrooms.
Christopher Swindell, journalism professor at Marshall University, is calling on National Rifle Association members to be shot before a firing squad.
In an op/ed published in the Charleston Gazette in early June, Swindell offered his version of the “final solution” for supporters of the Second Amendment, as Independent Journal Review’s Michael Miller characterized his vile rhetoric.
While passing himself off as “mainstream,” Swindell labels the NRA’s concerns as “knuckle-dragging Cretan talk” and accuses the organization of advocating for the overthrow of the U.S. government:
Here it is. The NRA advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America. That’s treason, and it’s worthy of the firing squad.
The professor adds that James W. Porter, Jr., the new NRA president, whom he referred to as “a white, rich old man,” has an agenda to arm the populace for confrontation and to drive his point home, he pulls the race card:
We put the president in the White House. To support the new NRA president’s agenda of arming the populace for confrontation with the government is bloody treason. And many invite it gladly as if the African-American president we voted for is somehow infringing on their Constitutional rights.
After calling himself as a “peacable man,” Swindell suggested “to turn the song lyric they so love to quote back on them, “We’ll put a boot in your —, it’s the American way.”
Except it won’t be a boot,” he writes. “It’ll be an M1A Abrams tank, supported by an F22 Raptor squadron with Hellfire missiles. Try treason on for size. See how that suits. And their assault arsenal and RPGs won’t do them any good.
That the Charleston Gazette would even publish such inflammatory vitriol is irresponsible in the least, but far more egregious is that this man is teaching the youth of America. God help us.
The college professor who accused National Rifle Association members of advocating for armed rebellion and being “worthy of the firing squad” has issued an apology.
After setting off a firestorm of criticism, Christopher Swindell, a journalism professor at Marshall University, told CNSNews.com on Monday that he was “waayyy too angry to comment on gun safety” and that he had learned that “American freedom is best served with an armed populace.”
In a June 3 e-mail to CNSNews.com, Prof. Swindell said:
Here is my statement for the record.
Marshall’s views are its own. I spoke of myself only. But, most important, I was waayyy too angry to comment on gun safety. I maligned decent NRA members rather than the fringe I was targeting.
I ask those people, most of whom are shocked, to forgive my position. I have recently learned from many decent commenters that American freedom is best served with an armed populace, unlike, say Mexico, where guns are banned. I never did like it when people messed up and didn’t apologize. I don’t want to be that person.
Would those folk accept the apology of a recent convert? Chris Swindell. One more thing. My anger was misplaced. I am out of line here, not for believing in gun safety, but for being a spokesperson for it.
As previously reported, Swindell wrote an editorial published Thursday in the Charleston Gazette offering his version of the “final solution” for supporters of the Second Amendment, as characterized by Independent Journal Review’s Michael Miller.
While passing himself off as “mainstream,” Swindell labeled the NRA’s concerns as “knuckle-dragging Cretan talk” and accused the organization of advocating for the overthrow of the U.S. government:
“Here it is. The NRA advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America. That’s treason, and it’s worthy of the firing squad.
While the good professor appears contrite, his statement fails to mention his reference to new NRA president James W. Porter, Jr. as “a white, rich old man” with an agenda to arm the populace for confrontation, or his claim that many gladly invite it “as if the African-American president we voted for is somehow infringing on their Constitutional rights.”
All of which prompts the question, is he truly sorry, or just trying to shake 5 million angry NRA members off his trail?