20
   

Shooting at Washington Shipyard

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 03:19 pm
Quote:


http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/19/hateful-prof-says-nra-members-children-should-be-next-to-die-in-mass-shooting/


In the wake of the Navy Yard shooting, a journalism professor at the University of Kansas is calling for children of NRA members to be the next people killed in a mass shooting.

David Guth, an associate professor at KU’s journalism school, took to Twitter to lay the blame for the Navy Yard shooting on the shoulders of NRA members. If anyone has to die in a mass shooting, it should be their children, he said.


#NavyYardShooting The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.
— David Guth (@DWGuth) September 16, 2013
He later doubled down on his statements in an interview with Campus Reform.

“Hell no, hell no, I do not regret that Tweet,” he said. “I don’t take it back one bit.”

His Tweets suggest that any attack on NRA members and their families would in fact be divine retribution.


@Flidais68 God’s justice takes many forms.
— David Guth (@DWGuth) September 16, 2013
Guth also told Campus Reform that Congress and the NRA were morally culpable for their failure to approve of sensible gun control legislation in the wake of last year’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook elementary in Newtown, Connecticut.

He did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Gun control advocates have rushed to blame gun laws for the shooting at Navy Yard on Monday, where possibly deranged gunman Aaron Alexis killed 12 people. Contrary to initial reports, it is now believed that Alexis did not use an assault rifle to carry out his attack. Rather, he used a shotgun typically available for small game hunting. (RELATED: Politicians, media outlets red-faced over wrong claims about gun in Navy Yard shootings)

Guth presided as an associate dean of UK’s journalism school for five years. Campus Reform reported that the university was standing by his right to make such claims about NRA members and their children.

Follow Robby on Twitter



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/19/hateful-prof-says-nra-members-children-should-be-next-to-die-in-mass-shooting/#ixzz2g2HupldG
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 04:24 pm
@BillRM,
I am all for the first as well as the second Amendment but then this man did wish death on likely some of his own students who parents happen to be members of the NRA.


Quote:


WICHITA, Kan. (AP) - A University of Kansas journalism professor was placed on indefinite administrative leave Friday for a tweet he wrote about the Navy Yard shootings which said, "blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters."

David W. Guth, an associate professor of journalism, made the comment on Twitter after Monday's shootings in Washington, D.C., in which 13 people died, including the gunman. The tweet didn't attract much attention until Campus Reform.org posted a story Thursday, sparking a social media backlash that's spilled over into some state lawmakers calling for his dismissal.

The university also responded, as Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little issued a statement Friday saying that "in order to prevent disruptions to the learning environment," Guth was placed on indefinite administrative leave pending a review. His classes will be taught by other faculty members.

Guth, who on Thursday told The Associated Press in a phone interview that his tweet "got a conversation going — that was exactly what I wanted to do," agreed Friday that the university's action was appropriate in light of email threats he and others at the university had received.

"It is in the best interests and peace of mind of our students that I remove myself from the situation and let cooler heads prevail," Guth wrote. "I know what I meant. Unfortunately, this is a topic that generates more heat than light."

He may have gotten more than he bargained for, however.

Kansas Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce, R-Hutchinson, said Thursday he was "appalled" by the tweet and called for the university to remove from Guth from the faculty.

"Wishing death and damnation upon parents and their children is reprehensible and not befitting an employee of such a distinguished university," Bruce said in an emailed statement.

Rep. Brett Hildabrand, a Shawnee Republican, urged via Twitter that the university to take "appropriate action" against Guth.

Bruce has received $2,500 in campaign contributions from the NRA since 2004, including $750 in 2012, according to the online database maintained by the state Governmental Ethics Commission. Hildabrand received a $500 contribution last year from the Kansas State Rifle Association.

The Kansas Board of Regents, expressing its "disgust and offense," said in a statement Friday it appreciated the immediate response by the chancellor.

Members of Kansas' faculty also distanced themselves from Guth's viewpoint.

"While the First Amendment allows anyone to express an opinion, that privilege is not absolute and must be balanced with the rights of others. That's vital to civil discourse," Ann Brill, dean of the journalism school, said in a statement. "Professor Guth's views do not represent our school and we do not advocate violence against any group or individuals."

The Kansas State Rifle Association has called his statements "outrageous," and president Patricia Stoneking said in a news release her group will "do everything possible" to see to his removal.

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam added Friday: "This is hate speech. It is disgusting and deplorable. It has no place in our society."

Guth, whose Twitter account is no longer available, said Thursday that gun rights advocates had orchestrated a social media campaign against him.

"I respect their First Amendment rights and it would be nice if they would respect mine," Guth said. "And, by the way, I even respect their Second Amendment rights.

"Frankly, my plan is to be the calm in the center of the storm," Guth said.

Associated Press writer John Hanna in Topeka, Kan., contributed to this report.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 10:05 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
From Scalia's opinion in Heller
Quote:
Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

Quote:
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

Quote:
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”


Yes. That is a fair representation of the argument that's been demolished hundreds of times.

As I said, it had been presented in greater detail in the past.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Sep, 2013 10:06 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Scalia iz ded wrong cuz the sekond amendamont duzn sez them things!
Gol dern it, my nuckles is all scrapped up!

Your problem with your knuckles might be related to trying to type in a weird accent.

Scalia isn't wrong.

Well, he is, but as far as the context in which his arguments are being used here, he isn't wrong.

The fact remains: Obama and the other Freedom Haters want to do away with the Constitution and abolish American freedom and civil rights.


But the Freedom Haters have been defeated. It's the rout to end all routs.

Obama's second term is now a legislative wasteland. All the political capital that he might have used to get another big program passed through Congress, was wasted throwing a tantrum against the NRA.

When 2016 rolls around, the voters are going to be sick and tired of "President Do Nothing". And they will elect a Republican to be our next president.

Like I said before, bringing all this nonsense up now is about like 1946 Japan asking for a re-do on the Battle of Midway.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Fri 27 Sep, 2013 01:01 am
You're dreaming, oralloy. You will notice that the polls have been pretty much steady for a couple years. Support for Democrats and Obama has been consistently about twice as high as for Republicans. The voters know who it is that is responsible for nothing getting done in Washington, and they know it's not Democrats. Democrats overall got more than a million votes more than Republicans in the House in 2012, and the only reason there's a Republican majority is because Republicans blatantly stacked the deck in redistricting. Not to mention the fact that the Republican electorate is aging out of life.

And you seem to be saying that Scalia's points in the majority in Heller have been discredited hundreds of times. No matter the fallacious reasoning that would lead you to that conclusion, the Supreme Court has the final say on whether or not something is constitutional, and the majority says that guns have been regulated and can continue to be easonably regulated, that they can legally be banned from sensitive locations, and that their sale can be regulated. Doesn't make any difference what you, or the NRA thinks, those are constitutional. Scalia also says that the Second Amendment is not absolute, no matter what the NRA rants about, and that it applies to weapons in common use in the 1790s. Which means single or double-shot muzzle-loading, black-powder weapons. Which pretty definitely would exclude automatic weapons, and large magazines. And get some good lAwyers and a pretty plausible case could be made for semi-auto weapons too. No, Obama is clearly within SCOTUS's guidelines.

And remember 90% of Americans, and a large majority of NRA members and their families, support strict bacground checks on all gun purchases. Rationality may have lost a battle, but the war continues and the more Newtownes, and Auroras, and Virginia Techs, and Navy Yards we have, the more the pressure is going to keep recurring and getting more intense.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 27 Sep, 2013 01:27 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
You're dreaming, oralloy.

Nope. Obama expended every bit of his political capital in a futile tantrum against the NRA, and now he has nothing left to get a single law passed.

It was possible that he would get immigration reform, not because of his own actions, but rather because some Republicans want it even more than he does. But it looks like even that is a no-go.

The voters will be plenty tired of "President Do Nothing" once 2016 rolls around.

I wonder who the Republicans will nominate? Jeb maybe?

I could go for another eight years of Bush leadership.


MontereyJack wrote:
Not to mention the fact that the Republican electorate is aging out of life.

That is perpetual.

Also perpetual is the fact that a certain portion of the Democratic electorate become Republicans once they get older.


MontereyJack wrote:
And you seem to be saying that Scalia's points in the majority in Heller have been discredited hundreds of times.

Hmmm.....

"Scalia isn't wrong."
"as far as the context in which his arguments are being used here, he isn't wrong."

No. I don't seem to be saying that.


MontereyJack wrote:
Scalia also says that the Second Amendment . . . applies to weapons in common use in the 1790s.

Balderdash.


MontereyJack wrote:
And get some good lawyers and a pretty plausible case could be made for semi-auto weapons too.

Not a chance.

But it would be funny to watch the voters react to you trying to take away their hunting rifles.


MontereyJack wrote:
No, Obama is clearly within SCOTUS's guidelines.

No he isn't.


MontereyJack wrote:
And remember 90% of Americans, and a large majority of NRA members and their families, support strict bacground checks on all gun purchases. Rationality may have lost a battle, but the war continues and the more Newtownes, and Auroras, and Virginia Techs, and Navy Yards we have, the more the pressure is going to keep recurring and getting more intense.

No, you've lost the war.

The Democrats have no ability to even push for another round of gun control. They were patronizing you a few days ago when they pretended otherwise.

And when 2016 rolls around, we're going to be looking forward to another eight years of Republican leadership (see above about the voters getting sick of a do nothing president).

I hope it's Jeb. The Bush family is a safe reliable choice.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Sep, 2013 01:40 am
re oralloy:
After Parados presented a precis of Scalia's argument in Heller you said
Quote:
Yes. That is a fair representation of the argument that's been demolished hundreds of times.

Which does in fact seem to say you think his argument has been demolished. If that was not in fact what you were saying, you should edit your posts more.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 27 Sep, 2013 01:44 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Which does in fact seem to say you think his argument has been demolished. If that was not in fact what you were saying, you should edit your posts more.

What has been demolished hundreds of times is the preposterous claim that Obama's monstrous gun legislation was in any way compatible with what Mr. Scalia wrote in the Heller decision.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Sep, 2013 01:47 am
You're still dreaming, oralloy. Republican obduracy is the cause of nothing happening in DC, and it;s pretty clear they're going to be massively blamed if they pursue their present course and trash the economy. Again.

And what you call "balderdash" is what Scalia has eplicitly said. I'm not making it up. Ignore it as you will. Scalia said it, for the majority, and they're the one who'll make the decision, not you. And again, what Obama has said is clearly within Heller's decision. Spin that how you will, you're wrong.

There's not a Republican contender who looks electable. And the demographics are running against you, and they'll be more against you in 2016. Your aging white male base is shrinking fast, and there's nothing you can do about that. And you're not winning anybody else to your side. Not women. Not the young. Not Hispanics. Not Asians. Not blacks. Not Democrats. And not independents. Not many people left you can win over. And people still think W. was incompetent. After two Bush strikeouts, I doubt anyone is gonna try for a third.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Sep, 2013 02:00 am
@MontereyJack,
the R's control the house and it was not that long ago that they had the White house, claims that they are all washed up have yet to be proven.

americans generally believe that the government is fucked and spends too much money, R fighting for conserving wealth might win them big points. individuals often want a payday but I believe that they still respect responsibility.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 27 Sep, 2013 02:29 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
And what you call "balderdash" is what Scalia has eplicitly said.

Mr. Scalia said that, in the 1790s, the Second Amendment applied to weapons in common use in the 1790s.

This does not mean it is limited to such weapons today.

In the 2010s, the Second Amendment applies to weapons in common use in the 2010s.

In the 3640s, the Second Amendment will apply to weapons in common use in the 3640s.


MontereyJack wrote:
And again, what Obama has said is clearly within Heller's decision.

Obama has said a lot of things. If you mean anything specific, you'll have to specify.

The monstrous gun legislation that he wasted all of his political capital pushing, however, is very clearly not compatible with Heller (or with any other reading of the Second Amendment).


MontereyJack wrote:
There's not a Republican contender who looks electable.

After four years of "President Do Nothing," the voters are going to elect whoever the Republicans decide to nominate.

Hopefully it'll be Jeb. Can't go wrong with the Bush family.

But regardless, whoever the Republicans nominate in 2016, that person will be our president for the next eight years. Obama's gun legislation debacle (with the resulting inability to achieve anything in his second term) makes it inevitable.


MontereyJack wrote:
Your aging white male base is shrinking fast, and there's nothing you can do about that.

My base???

I remain an unrepentant Blue Dog.


MontereyJack wrote:
And you're not winning anybody else to your side. Not women. Not the young. Not Hispanics. Not Asians. Not blacks. Not Democrats. And not independents.

Nonsense. The Republicans are doing fine.

Even without their pending eight-year easywin, the Republicans would be doing fine.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Sep, 2013 02:46 am
You're dreaming, oralloy. Look at the polls. Weren't you predicting Obama was going to lose in 2012? didn't turn out that way, did it? If you think Republican approval ratings in the low 20s is doing fine, you have a strange definition of "fine".
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 27 Sep, 2013 02:59 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Weren't you predicting Obama was going to lose in 2012?

No. This is my first time predicting an election outcome.

Not sure if prediction is the right word for it though. After Obama wasted all his political capital on a futile tantrum against the NRA, the result became inevitable.

If a result is inevitable, is it "prediction" when you take note that it will happen?

At any rate, no. This is my first time predicting such.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Sep, 2013 06:45 am
@oralloy,
Scalia's argument has been demolished? Scalia's argument is the MAJORITY opinion in Heller. It wasn't demolished. It's the current USSC stance on the issue.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Sep, 2013 08:16 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Hopefully it'll be Jeb. Can't go wrong with the Bush family.


Oh dandy, another war criminal/terrorist Bush.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Oct, 2013 11:11 pm

Here's a new twist on a shooting: victim was 8½ months pregnant.
http://tbo.com/news/crime/tampa-police-investigate-homicide-on-w-chestnut-street-20131002/

Looks like they arrested the gunman. Probably would have all happened differently if she'd been armed too.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.37 seconds on 08/20/2019 at 04:50:08