Professor Richard Symanski-UCI faculty profile photo
(Yes, that's a Cuban flag in the background)
As a part-time teacher at UC Irvine Extension, I have said on many occasions that UCI is largely spared too many loopy professors due to the fact that we have a relatively small humanities and social sciences section. Now, courtesy of Campus Reform, I learn of a biology professor at UCI I had never heard of. His name is Richard Symanski, and he subjected his biology class to a discourse on how the NRA is to blame for the San Bernardino massacre. A student videotaped his words.
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7058
OK, Professor. First of all, I don't know what this has to do with biology, but I'll let that pass.
As for Australia. That country has never had the number of guns as we have had in this country nor the type of society we have. Maybe they could go out and round up their guns, but we can't. There are tens of millions of guns in this country and many of them are in the hands of criminals. They will not turn them in. Only law-abiding people will turn in their guns if the law mandates it. That leaves them defenseless when the bad guys come through their front door. We live in a very violent society, and people have a right to defend themselves against the vicious criminal and now terrorist element we have in this country.
As for San Bernardino, had a couple of people in that room had guns, the carnage would have been greatly reduced. There will be more San Bernardinos, and we cannot give up the right to defend ourselves against these animals.
Final point: We have yet to see our first massacre at the hands of the NRA. Their members are law-abiding people who own their guns legally and use them in a legal manner. (No, I am not a member.) I suggest Professor Symanski focus his attention on the criminals and terrorists who are the real threat.
I also suggest he get back to the subject of biology when in the classroom.
1 comment:
Although I believe I may have mentioned this previously, it has been a little while and it might bear repeating.
Many/most on the Left (including Siarlys) blather on about "universal gun registration" as one potential cure-all for gun violence. The fact is that in jurisdictions where registration is already a requirement, as well as in any that might be added in the future, due to Fifth Amendment considerations, individuals who are prohibited from firearms possession but who manage to come into one anyway may not, repeat NOT, be prosecuted for either failure to register a firearm or for possession of an unregistered firearm.
This seems pretty silly to me. These people are, of course, exactly and precisely those who are most apt to use guns in violent activity, much, MUCH more so than law-abiders. One of the unspoken (at least by the Left) "unintended consequences" of registration is that it provides an effective avenue to future confiscation, which is the real ultimate goal of the "antis" anyway , and which has actually happened here and in foreign countries as well.
Why in the world we would not consider strict and effective enforcement of current gun laws to the "nth" degree and judge the effects of that action before enacting new laws is just beyond me.
I AM a member of NRA (Life membership since the early 70's). You are absolutely correct, with very, very few exceptions indeed, in your characterization of the organization and its members.
The so-called "gun show loophole" is also just another red herring for defacto waiting periods/denials of purchase which cannot be accomplished by the Left at the ballot box.
Post a Comment