Tom-H.-Hastings-courtesy-warpreventioninitiaive.org__1

Tom H. Hastings (above) is a professor in the Conflict Resolution Department at Portland State University and founding director of PeaceVoice. Mr. Hastings’ post Eliminate the Second Amendment and Keep Your Guns is about as kooky as you’d expect from someone who (probably) believes singing kumbaya constitutes social progress. But there is at least one surprising bit in his anti-gun rights dietribe [sic]. This . . .

OK, I confess I fail to see the thrill or need associated with gun ownership and use, but we live in a free country—sort of—and I get why those who hunt need long guns. But I teach, write, and live trying to practice nonviolence between and among humans at least. I’ve had guns pulled on me and fired at me twice and have never ever wanted to shoot anyone. That direct violence is beyond my understanding so I fully acknowledge my bias against guns, especially handguns.

And there you have it. A Fudd who claims — I repeat claims — he’s been under direct gunfire not once, but twice. And never felt the desire to stop the threat by force of arms. And admits that “direct violence is beyond my understanding,” but can’t understand how his ignorance disqualifies himself from holding any position on gun rights. This from a “conflict resolution” professor on a website named counterpunch.org.

My real point on the Second Amendment is that it effectively blocks sane control of weaponry. Repealing the Second Amendment would not affect anything that most gun owners feel is desirable. But the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supremes does make it possible for the gun industry, through its most powerful lobbyist–the NRA–to claim that laws restricting anything to do with guns are odious and part of an unconstitutional slippery slope. The track record is so clear. The Second Amendment protects the gun manufacturers and sellers at the expense of a lot of lives every year.

Well that’s just stupid. And woefully, perhaps deliberately ill-informed. And irrational. To borrow his phraseology, the track record on academics and gun rights is so clear. They are against them. Full stop. But Professor Hastings is just getting started. To save him the embarrassment he so clearly deserves, I’ll skip to his conclusion.

I know no gun opponent who favors disarming the rural hunter putting provender on his or her family table. I can hope that those, in fact, will be some of the voices calling for far greater sensible gun control so they can take a trip into a city and make it back alive—or so they can send their child to college in some town and not fear so much.

Fear and loathing. What else do the proponents of civilian disarmament have in their rhetorical arsenal? Nothing.

Recommended For You

102 Responses to Eliminate the Second Amendment and Keep Your Guns. WTF?

  1. Oh look a dirty commie wants to take away my right. How about we repeal the 1st amendment and then deal with commies the way they deserve?

      • “Eliminate the Second Amendment and Keep Your Guns.” and your statement sound a lot like the Obama lie: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”.

    • He has a ponytail, demonstrating his unbridled knowledge and logic. So he is obviously smarter than the rest of us. Right?

      • That’s a braid, not a ponytail. You’re obviously unfit to have an opinion on anything. This is why people like you need to be told what to do by your braided betters.

    • Yet another academic demonstrating that education doesn’t equate to wisdom, but, in many cases, equals the opposite. Odds are that if you are working in the world of academia, you are not able enough to live, work and survive in the real world. Baaaa Baaaa Baaa ….

      • As someone who works in academia, I have to respectfully disagree there, Mr. Dave ;-). While that generalization may hold true for some fields, in the sciences it’s typically the other way around. Those who work in industry are (often unfairly though) stereotyped as those who couldn’t “hack it” in academia.

        Academic jobs are much harder to get and therefore more prestigious, but also come with longer working hours and higher stress. Each professor is essentially a small-business owner, juggling budget, HR, government regulations, etc. whose employees can be left without a livelihood if the next project doesn’t pan out. On the other hand, if that happens they usually have the option of going to “slum it” in the private sector for a while.

        I can’t speak to those working in the fields of “peace studies” and “conflict resolution”, but I imagine there is less demand for them in the private sector ;-).

        And while they may be a minority, there are gun-owning and pro-gun academics, they just tend to keep their heads down.

        • That’s exactly what people in industry say about academics. Something along the lines of “if you can’t do teach”. I’ve worked in both and it’s like anything else, good and bad in either. Hubris has no preferred hangout.

  2. Well he is kinda right. Even if, through the amendment process, the people of America chose to eliminate the 2nd Amendment, I’d still keep my guns.

    • T-shirt, tweed jacket, pigtail over the shoulder and a professor at an Oregon university. Definitely do NOT trust this person.

      • Clearly. That man is so high on pot that I think I got a contact high from just reading the article.

      • Unfair to this gentleman. You can trust him.

        You can trust that he believes what he says. You can trust the he will follow through if ever given half the chance. Tou can trust that while he is for non-violence he would let the state exercise it against you on his behalf. You can trust that he does not see the hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance or irony in that.

        See this is a very trustworthy person as long as you know what you are trusting them on.

    • That is one psychiatrically tortured dude right there. Whatever.

      Guy should be dealing antiques or ex prison guard instead of teaching young minds.

      • Nah; he’s sporting a Subaru Outback wagon with “Feel the Bern”, “PETA” and “Coexist” stickers all over the tailgate…..

        • Hey! I drive a Subaru Outback station wagon. I take offense! (grin) It gets decent gas mileage, and has an 18.5 gal tank. It has full time 4 wheel drive and good ground clearance that gets me to the off road sites I want to get to. I am not a proglodyte. I don’t want to take your guns, I don’t want this human weed to take mine. Don’t diss my car. /humor

  3. He is familiar with the term “slippery slope” but apparently has no concept of its true meaning.

    I cannot imagine anyone so foolish as to have been shot at twice (and missed?) who yet has no concept of self defense or self protection other than some form of conflict resolution! The guy shooting at him was also practicing conflict resolution, or didn’t this dimwit notice?

    • When he was shot at, he calmly talked to the bullets, the conflict was resolved and the bullets quietly returned to their homes. This didn’t anger the shooter because he realised that he didn’t actually expend any ammo, plus after watching the good Doctor talk to the bullets the person was enlightened and found inner peace.

      These days Dr. Hastings meets up with those whose lives he’s improved at a furry convention where what goes on might be weird as hell but it’s all consenting adults who are at peace with themselves.

  4. “Tom H. Hastings (above) is a professor in the Conflict Resolution Department at Portland State University…”

    AND that is why the cost of college is so high. So many useless and worse than useless positions and persons to pay for.

    • Apparently they choose to ignore the fact that the biggest conflicts in history were resolved by force of arms.

  5. This guy understands the Second Amendment. He also understands constitutional processes. We keep talking about a dialogue with our opponents. Isn’t this the kind of guy we can dialogue with?

    • My guess is no, still.

      A good “dialogue” requires a starting point at which both parties can agree. Maybe something incredibly small, but something.

      He’s got three major points of disagreement with anything is have to discuss with him:

      1) firearms are for hunting

      2) apparently there is no such thing as self defense

      3) a good talk can solve anything

      Realistically we’d probably have to go so far in the weeds to have a point of agreement the resulting dialogue would be completely pointless.

      Harken back to Obama’s first government shutdown. “If the Republicans raise the debt ceiling, then we can talk about cutting expenses.” Or, give me everything I want then we’ll negotiate. THAT is what they mean by having a “dialogue.”

    • Conflict resolution. His ideas about the natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms conflict with mine. His concept is to discuss the issue ad infinitum until I agree with him and give up everything except my double-barelled shotgun. My concept is, “Molon Labe, MF.”

    • A dialogue does not mean you have to come to an agreement. Our common point agreement with him is he accepts our view that the right to bear arms is part of the Bill of Rights and if you want to change that you have to repeal the Second Amendment.

  6. I’ve been saying this for years. Eliminate the whole BOR. That old piece of paper is a crutch. A totem to display whenever anyone doesn’t feel adequately free and show them “see, you are free despite how you feel because of this old piece of paper.” It’s a tyrants buffer. Authoritarians are always attacking it and never you or me. Get rid of it. Feel the attack on your liberty personally and deeply. Not as an attack on some old piece of paper. As long as it exists fools will attach their liberty to it rather than own it themselves.

  7. An admittedly biased old hippie, admittedly incabable of understanding an opposing point of view, is a college professer. Who’d a thunk it?

  8. First, unless he had guns pulled on him pursuant to him being arrested, I call BS. Second, I used to live in Portland, which is a city filled with crunchies who live in complete isolation from the rest of the world. He is one of them, obviously. They believe everyone should live in some metropolitan “utopian” city sipping lattés and forced by law to eat vegan. They believe that anyone who does not have the same political belief should be carted away by the police. They believe it is okay to discriminate against Christians, Republicans, and people with light colored skin. When union members beat up someone who crosses the union, they lap praise on the thugs, and the government steps back and does nothing. Protestors assault store customers of a furrier, and the police are ordered not to interfere. It is a place where it is legal to have sex in public. It is a place where juvenile delinquents on bikes can cause havoc, and the mayors response is to build them a monument. They tell you about how fair and supportive they are to the poor and homeless, yet they come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who is homeless that wonder into their precious pearl district where the trendy and rich live in their high-rise condos. And I could go on and on how backward that place has become.

  9. old hippies give those of us who got a real education (not basket weaving courses) got real jobs, a bad reputation. Seems some of “The Greatest Generation” raised some of the worse generation!.

    Just another aging baby boomer, desperate to remain relevant.

  10. If direct violence is beyond your understanding, then you have no business teaching conflict resolution. You can’t possibly pretend to stop, prevent or avoid something you don’t understand.

  11. He wrote an op-ed in 2014 for TruthOut about the Second Amendment:

    “Repeal the Stupid Second Amendment. Surround it, grab it, bring it in the back room, pull down the shades, and end it. OK, petition for it, get it on the ballot, and get it done by enough of the US populace, by enough people in enough states, to get it consigned to the dustbin of history. Happy New Year, people. Peace.”

    So a proponent of non-violent conflict resolution compares repealing the second amendment to a back-room killing. Nice. Interesting how he also brags about doing 3 bounces in prison, allegedly for his “non-violent protests.” A little more Google – fu and a bio about him on a “war resisters” website says he has two felony convictions for his beliefs.

    So THAT’s why he’s so anti-Second. He’s a prohibited person. No guns for you, professor!

    • Yeah, saw something referring to him as a “Plowshares Prisoner”. That means he was probably messing around protesting and trespassing on nuke plant property back in the 80’s.

  12. “Repealing the Second Amendment would not affect anything that most gun owners feel is desirable.”

    How, I wonder, is it possible that he thinks he knows what most gun owners feel is desirable?

    My guess is, he did a thought experiment starting with “If I were a gun owner…” and started off down a trail with Jed Clampett.

    From there, his built in biases and prejudices (which, to his credit, he admits to) wouldn’t readily, if ever, let him follow that path to where I’d guess a lot of gun owners are – especially those who live in cities of suburbs, and/or who didn’t grow up with guns.

  13. He’s could be like the ‘Junk Food Junkie’ in the famous song. Has a whole stash of guns and ammo that he admires when no one is looking.

  14. How is it that a conflict resolution expert gets guns pulled on him, and even manages to get himself shot at, not once, but twice! The even stranger thing is that someone is willing to pay him for that somewhat dubious expertise, oh wait, it’s the government paying him, never mind.

  15. “I’ve had guns pulled on me and fired at me twice and have never ever wanted to shoot anyone.”

    How I was raised, not protecting yourself is tantamount to suicide.

    And further – I imagine he wouldn’t mind the police shooting said attackers. Which is worse, protecting yourself, or calling upon a paid public servant to take a life for you?

  16. So the first amendment protect news media outlets, publishers, and PA equipment manufacturers. The third amendment protects contractors like Halliburton when they construct buildings for the military. And the forth through eighth amendments protect law firms. What’s his point? That to actualize a right may require exterior manufacturing firms? Ok.

  17. I guess I’m the person he hates because I am an absolute believer in the 2nd amendment, it was written by me who just overthrew the oppression of their government.not people who wanted to make sure we could hunt.
    I also feel ex cons should be able to own guns. If they are dangerous they should still be in jail. They either paid their debt or keep them in till they do.
    If the right is granted by God then how can mat take it away.
    All guns and weapons so that we, the free men, could stand toe to toe against an oppressive government!

  18. It’s now official — academia is a network of insane asylums run by lunatics to infect the foolish.

  19. “And never felt the desire to stop the threat by force of arms. And admits that ‘direct violence is beyond my understanding,’ ”

    If what he said is true, you are describing a bona fide pacifist. Not so hard to understand. Under the most literal definition, a pacifist will stand there while you kill them, or their family, or bystanders, yet take no action against you. (they will try to keep you alive after the cops, or armed person punch little bitty high speed holes in you.

    Oh, and a true pacifist will do things to convince others that pacifism can overcome evil and violence.

    But they cross out of their zone of influence when they get all political.

    • I used to believe that if someone chose NOT to defend himself against a lethal force attack that they were simply exercising their rights in a way that I would choose not to. I know longer believe this.

      The reason is that a person who would commit an act of extreme violence against another human being in the real world is likely not standing in their first rodeo. That is to say, very few criminals commit murder, rape or other types of violent assaults on one day and then say “Well, that was interesting, but I don’t think I ever want to do that again.”

      Given that most violent criminals are recidivist, even if you believe that violence against another person is morally wrong even in defense of your own life, you still have a responsibility to stand up for the community. Your pacifism is not noble. Your failure to protect yourself against such a threat will in fact virtually guarantee that someone else in your community will be seriously injured or killed by the monster that you would let go free. Your failure to fight therefore only perpetuates a clear and present danger to society itself by giving evil another chance to be visited on someone else.

      • “Your failure to protect yourself against such a threat will in fact virtually guarantee that someone else in your community will be seriously injured or killed by the monster that you would let go free.”

        Absolutely. And say Dr Hippiebraid, confict resolutionist, is killed or permanently disabled by his attacker because of his “superior” pacifism. Now his family is deprived of his income and support. Does he care more about “making a statement” by dying at the hands of a thug than his family’s welfare? And when this violent criminal kills or maims other folks in the community, their families will suffer. Does this not matter?

        If we are able to protect ourselves we owe it to our loved ones and to our communities to do so. Not all will succeed at protecting themselves, but most will. This guy fails to understand this concept. You know, let’s just leave it at “this guy fails.”

  20. Well, of course the professor’s irrational opinion is moot. To suggest that you cannot even imagine a situation where you would WANT to use deadly force sounds good but it approaches the reality of the situation with the ignorance of a small child. The truth is, there is evil in the world and someone in fact may want to inflict a crippling injury or to kill YOU regardless of what you think about it.

    Any rational person would be reluctant to take a human life and perhaps even distraught in doing so but to claim that you cannot understand how it might be justified in ANY situation is either self-delusion or the ridiculous ramblings of a mental midget.

  21. I do fear for my son in college in an urban environment, because he is disarmed against any threats he may face.

    I truly fear for our country with asshats like this influencing minds.

  22. ” The track record is so clear. The Second Amendment protects the gun manufacturers and sellers at the expense of a lot of lives every year.”

    Very few countries have protected rights to bear arms. The USA and the Czech Republic are the only two I can think of that protect an enumerated right to arms.

    Despite this freedom, the Czechs have lower violence than we do, and lower than several of their more restrictive neighbors.

    There Is zero correlation between firearms ownership and homicide rates. Some of the most restrictive countries are the most violent in the world. Some of the most restrictive countries are also the least violent in the world. We fall somewhere in the middle.

    • I’d wager that the lack of violence in the Czech Republic has a lot to do with the fact that it is a much more homogeneous society.

  23. Shot at twice? Where, when, with who, where is the police report? There are really only two possibilities. He is either completely full of shite or he was involved with a small meeting of like minded liberals in one of our democrat controlled ghettos. Both possibilities explain the lack of details. I think most, like myself, involved in some firearm related event outside of military/police operations can recall with exquisite detail the who/where/whens.

    Maybe he can hitchhike across to Chicago and put his resolution skills to the test. A quick walk after dark in Humboldt Park ought to do the trick. If he wants to level up to pro, maybe he can do it by swapping out of his professor hipster garb, put on a nice suit and wear an expensive watch. Though I’m sure he would use the liberal’s favorite paroxysm “that would be asking for someone to rob you”. I say favorite paroxysm because it quickly flips for rape victims.

    Get back to listening to NPR and trying to woo hairy armpit gingerites.

  24. I nominate him for Sheep of the Year! He wants “hunters” to join his anti gun position.

    have we not heard the promise “If you like your XXX, you can keep your XXX”?

  25. Liberals never ceases to amaze me. Violence is and always will be the MOST effective way to solve a problem. I’m not saying it is the ideal way, but we are flawed creatures. Make no mistake, violence resolves conflicts and often is the ONLY way to resolve a conflict. Just ask Hitler.

    • “There is no problem which cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives.”
      — William W. Hughes

  26. Someone had tried to kill him. On two occasions. He can choose to be a victim. I, however, will continue to be of the mindset that if someone tries to kill me I’m gonna kill them back.

  27. “I’ve had guns pulled on me and fired at me twice and have never ever wanted to shoot anyone.”

    One is left to ponder what activities he was partaking in when he was being shot at…twice. Someplace he shouldn’t have been, doing something he shouldn’t have been?

  28. “I’ve had guns pulled on me and fired at me twice and have never ever wanted to shoot anyone.”

    In the words of my seventeen year old as I read this to her as we eat lunch, “This sure doesn’t sound like someone who has been shot at…”

  29. I guess this tweed dweeb has never heard of a country called Mexico. You know, that hell hole south of the border. The one where the people can’t own guns bigger than a 22 caliber and can only buy a gun legally at one shop in Mexico City after a very long and expensive background check.
    But amazingly, the cartels and other criminals have no trouble getting all the automatic weapons and handguns they want.

  30. “…to claim that laws restricting anything to do with guns are odious and part of an unconstitutional slippery slope. The track record is so clear.”

    I couldn’t agree more! The track record of gun control laws being odious and part of an unconstitutional slippery slope is extremely clear.

  31. There was a group of pacifists like him on the most recent episode of Game of Thrones. *spoiler alert* They were robbed and murdered. Shocking, right?

  32. “… [the Second Amendment] effectively blocks sane control of weaponry.”

    We probably all know the saying, “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.” Applying that to this case, we can say, “One man’s sane is another man’s insane.”

    What he suggests is “sane” I consider to be insane.

  33. How to “eliminate” the Second Amendment:
    “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

    Go for it, if that’s what you really want. But do NOT try to have your favorite despot do it with an Executive order or a bureaucratic regulation.

  34. With crap like that spewing out of his mouth, I can understand how he keeps getting into situations where he gets shot at.

  35. Scanned the comments and see he is a felon. Poor pigtailed loser. Gettin’ high too much…or is he the arch-typical fudd?

  36. They have a Department of Conflict Resolution? WTF is that anyway?
    Is it like a Department of Redundancy Department?

  37. Fundamentally, these people have an addiction. There is a distinct pleasure they derive from engaging in fantasies of a lovey dovey world where good intentions beget good outcomes. They ignore the anger, evil, and recklessness out there; focusing instead on simple, even imbecilic, abstractions from the world. This sparks actual, indulgent pleasure sensations in their brains.

    It could be as innocent and superficial as autonomous sensory meridian responses, or ASMR. (Google it. Better yet, Youtube it!) Or it could be a serious endorphin addiction. Howsoever, it feels good, so good, that they repeat the activities or thoughts that prompted the response so as to repeat the feeling.

    Call it moral preening or mental masturbation. It’s not about intelligence. These people are not amenable to reason any more than than a junkie is open to the “that’ll kill ya” argument, or a drunk is persuaded by the “you’re ruining your life at the bottom of a bottle” line. These liberal peaceniks/pacifists/cowards just want to wallow in smug self-satisfaction.

    Well, that, and to employ other men with guns to disarm you and conscript you in their delusional dystopia.

  38. As a Jewish American, I am a firm supporter of the right to bear arms
    There are people still alive who remember when a “civilized” government came to take away the Jews to death camps.
    There was no place for ” conflict resolution” at the train station
    Only people with guns can resist so that the holocaust never happens again

  39. A Fudd who claims — I repeat claims — he’s been under direct gunfire not once, but twice.
    Sooo….how did he survive the situations?

    • By dropping into the fetal position and gnawing his genitals like a drug addled wolverine until the all the noises stopped.

      I hear its a learned response.

  40. Conflict resolution is fine with violent criminals, but it only works when backed up with the threat of force.

  41. I can well understand the urge of anyone who wanted to take a potshot at this turd. Probably criminals as they tend to fire while running away, and hardly ever aim. I can barely resist the urge to empty a cylinder on him as well. He is a true c*nt. If anyone is paying his salary they ought to take a long and hard look at the morality of allowing this mental pedophile to pollute young minds with impunity. As a fashion statement, he gives academics a bad name, but his deluded reasoning and flagrant abuse of logic should disqualify him from any teaching role immediately. I question his sanity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *