writes an editorial about gun control for the Charleston Gazette.
Here is a portion of what it says:
This foaming at the mouth, Obamar is coming for the guns, Nanny Bloomberg is a bad billionaire, and most despicable of all, those survivors and victims are pawns in the liberal agenda is knuckle-dragging Cretan talk.
And no matter how many times Sen. Joe Manchin tries to explain his compromise (a decent attempt thwarted by extremists), the hard right lies and foams. The repeated lies now seem like the truth, what with the likes of Sen. Kelly Ayotte telling them.
Probably the most serious miscalculation opponents make is the guest list for the NRA speaker's podium. To let the half-wit half-term quitter Sarah Palin have a microphone is to alienate the very people Republicans need to work with on future legislation. To say nothing of the other speakers.
And how does choosing a white, rich old man with an offensive degrading speech about the war of "Northern Aggression" as NRA president forward a sense of reasonableness? History lesson: It was an awful Civil War won decisively some 150 years ago. Over slavery. The Confederacy wanted to keep African-Americans in chains and President Lincoln didn't.
Sure, there were states' rights issues, but nullification, secession, and treason were settled at Appomattox Courthouse. Sure, Reconstruction left a bad taste. But, resurrecting these same things, the way South Carolina is as we speak, is to invite a return to the whole concept of a Union.
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 B.S. needs a serious gut check. We are not a tin pot banana republic where machine gun toting rebel groups storm the palace and depose the dictator.
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.
Normally, I am a peaceable man, but in this case, I am willing to answer the call to defend the country. From them.
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. 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.
So, to return to reality, all of us. Let's make common sense gun safety a deciding issue for 2014 and beyond. The NRA certainly has. Let's push back. We the People. The 85 percent who support more robust background checks. And when the next domestic terrorist with an assault rifle comes along, we can blame the leaders and fringe of the NRA for arming them.
Seems reasonable, right?
Nope. not if you are a conservative website catering TO the Right. If you are them you write a response with the headline "LEFT-WING JOURNALISM PROFESSOR CALLS FOR MASS SLAUGHTER OF NRA" and say the following:
It’s difficult to parse this level of pure stupidity, but apparently this is what passes for a “thought experiment” in the deranged recesses of the Swindell mind. You see, NRA types are given to accurately citing the Founders’ view of the Second Amendment as a check against tyranny. That means they’re all secretly dreaming of violently overthrowing the U.S. government, which these knuckle-draggers think is liable to degenerate into tyranny. Therefore, the government should… live down to the most hostile caricature of illegitimate, tyrannical government by sending the military out to murder them?
The rest of the article takes a defensive, almost injured tone, that anybody would suggest that those calling for their fellow Teabaggers and 2nd Amendment fetishists take up arms to "defend their freedoms" would actually be treated as a threat to the government or that it might elicit an armed response from the military.
In fact the author seems to be under the assumption that the United States Military would refuse orders to engage armed domestic terrorists and actually join their side. (A fantasy by the way that one Schaeffer Cox, now serving time in federal prison, also shared.)
You know I read the professor's article three times and I do not see written ANYWHERE a call for the "mass slaughter" of the NRA, or anybody else actually.
To me it reads like a much needed reality check to those fantasizing about using their arsenals of military style weapons to hold off the ACTUAL military, that should they convince the government that they pose a very real danger to their fellow citizens that NOTHING they bought off E-Bay will fend off the might of the United States of America.
And that is NOT a threat, that is a promise.