Rabid, anti-NRA OP-ED by alleged journalism professor

This is Swindell's tweet, in which he apologizes:

Very important change of tune. When someone shared Mexico bans guns, I realized I was wrong. NRA members (I still disagree with leadership) are DEFENDING freedom. Not threatening it. Would you accept a recent convert’s apology?
Click to expand...

He's still writing on the grammar-school level, and I'm not sure what makes his personal change of tune "very important." If it only took one piece of evidence for him to come in from that far afield, then this is a guy who forms very emotional opinions based on very unsound assumptions.
 
"[He's still writing on the grammar-school level, and I'm not sure what makes his personal change of tune "very important." If it only took one piece of evidence for him to come in from that far afield, then this is a guy who forms very emotional opinions based on very unsound assumptions]"

Yes,, He's in Left Field for SURE ; )
Y/D
 
Tom Servo said:
This is Swindell's tweet, in which he apologizes:
Very important change of tune. When someone shared Mexico bans guns, I realized I was wrong. NRA members (I still disagree with leadership) are DEFENDING freedom. Not threatening it. Would you accept a recent convert’s apology?
Click to expand...
He's still writing on the grammar-school level, and I'm not sure what makes his personal change of tune "very important." If it only took one piece of evidence for him to come in from that far afield, then this is a guy who forms very emotional opinions based on very unsound assumptions.
Click to expand...
I was also struck by the ease with which he was converted. It says to me that his convictions are not very deep, and he'll shift positions the first time the wind blows the other way. It also didn't strike me as a very sincere apology. Then again, I have some reservations about any apology which is "tweeted," but I'm kinda old-fashioned that way.
 
Oh, I don't think it was sincere at all, and it was probably important only to his department chair. And as for "tweeting" an apology.... :regurgitate:

The interesting thing is why the Whosis Gazette published it in the first place. Either they were desperate for words, or the editorial staff has, um, low standards -- or both.
 
I simply can't believe that this man is a professor. Apart from his grammar being atrocious, he seems to be implying that race is a large factor in the gun control debate. He makes a point to add that the POTUS is black and that the NRA president is white. What difference does it make?

If not for his clear lack of English comprehension, I would assume that he, a journalism professor, would have realized the subtle undertones that he placed in the article.

Furthermore, I've always found it funny that people assume that the military would be on either particular side. At least he has seen the error in his ways.
 
*snort* he hasn't seen the error of his ways. I've no doubt he was informed by the powers that be in his pathetic little life to change his tune quickly or his little world would get very uncomfortable very quickly.

The ivory towers of acedemics may be isolated, but they have internal politics at play that could make your average congress critter wet his pants.
 
He seems to call for the government to fire on it citizens who do not want gun controll, thus providing new evidence as to why we want to protect our second amendment rights.
To accuse someone of treason for demanding that the government respect the constutition is just a little absurd!
 
He probably heard from prospective students for next semester, and worried about fewer students to lecture.

Many professors are former, or frustrated revolutionaries (it's so much safer to teach), and a fraction of the others are big fish in a small pond, especially if tenured.
 
Just read it.

First of all the main methodology he is using is strawmen. A boggling string of them.

Secondly by his logic he is anti vaccine.

The question of deterrence of tyranny and levels of arms is interesting. He must have missed vietnam
 
Read what the guy wrote first. . .not what he wrote/said after his feet were held to the fire. He is no friend of the Second Amendment.
 
I read the article. Poorly written, rambling rant. That's all it amounts to. Some anti-gun jerk is angry and he's venting by typing one-line attacks on anyone his small mind can instantly think of who is an outspoken pro 2nd Amendment advocate. It's really not even worth commenting on.

Then I read some of the so-called professor's retorts to the comments - I too find it difficult to believe that he attained any degree from any college or junior college. Like this:

"Michael, as I don't know you, I won't stoop to your BS. But, here it is. I advocate peaceful means of solving differences. And your threat is so far out of line you need investigating. How dare you threaten me? From me to you here's a road map to the Hell we all want people like you to go to."

Anything he disagrees with is "BS". He feigns offense at threats that only exist in his mind, and indicates that he feels that those who disagree with him should be condemned to Hell. Hardly any facts, and what facts he relies on he had to admit were wrong down in the comments . Overall, just a very juvenile rant.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top