Bluestarlizzard said:
The article came off as a nasty bit of ranting by a spoiled brat who isn't getting his way.
It certainly came across as a rant by someone who hasn't grasped the difference between arguing against a policy and trashing the people who support it. At least in public, academics are usually able to make that distinction.
On the other hand, when you look at the state of so-called journalism today, especially broadcast journalism (which is Dr. Swindell's field), it's not surprising that journalists are being trained by such people. The cliché is "If it bleeds, it leads" -- and an article like that is the written equivalent of going for blood instead of facts. It's all about hurting political opponents, not about showing why they're wrong.
KyJim said:
I am not really surprised he would resort to the use of force to impose his will on those who believe in the Constitution.
Actually, he's making a rhetorical point there, not an actual proposal. He's saying, I think, that it's unrealistic to talk of opposing a "tyrannical" government with small arms, when that government would bring Abrams tanks, etc., to bear. Note that the following paragraph starts with "So, to return to reality, all of us."
His real agenda is this, and it's not new. "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."