Shooting at Washington Shipyard

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

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.

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.”

Scalia iz ded wrong cuz the sekond amendamont duzn sez them things!
Gol dern it, my nuckles is all scrapped up!

You're dreaming, oralloy.

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.

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

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.

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.

And what you call "balderdash" is what Scalia has eplicitly said.

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

There's not a Republican contender who looks electable.

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.

Weren't you predicting Obama was going to lose in 2012?

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