Christopher Swindell is apparently a professor.
This makes me a bit embarrassed to have a journalism background, because sweaty scrotums such as this shouldn’t be allowed near students, let alone be paid to teach them anything.
But apparently, not only does Swindell teach at Marshall University, but he’s allowed a forum in which to spew his incoherent and historically-ignorant vomit – The Charleston Gazette.
You see, Swindell is advocating treason and execution for NRA members. If you think I’m joking, I’m not.
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.
I won’t fisk this drooling ignoramus’ piece, because frankly, I don’t have the time today, and I have this burning desire to actually keep down my breakfast. Besides, better men and women than me have already done this with a flair I could only aspire to. Men like Robert Stacy McCain, and Bitter, and others.
I will say this about what this douchetard: had he spent even a minute studying history and reading the words of the men who founded this nation, instead of spewing froth-flecked abuse at an organization that advocates adherence to the US Constitution, he would understand that armed rebellion against the government is exactly what the founders intended when they wrote the Second Amendment. Alexander Hamilton specifically said in Federalist 28 that it was the duty of the populace to launch armed rebellion against a tyrannical government. And if you know anything about Hamilton, it’s not like he was a small-government type guy compared to some of the other founders. And even he understood that the citizens have the right of rebellion.
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence, which is paramount to all positive forms of government; and which, against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success, than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power became usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions or districts, of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defence. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, cloathed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition; and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements; and the military force in the possession of the usurpers, can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation, there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to ensure success to the popular resistance.
But since he apparently doesn’t give a rat’s ass about history and the founding of this nation, my educated assessment is that he’s too stupid and stubborn to read it. He’s probably much more concerned about teaching his students about their entitlements, and how to more efficiently tongue-bathe the administration’s taint in order to get “exclusive” access.
“I’m all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let’s start with computers.” — with deepest apologies to Frank Lloyd Wright for bastardizing his quote.