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.