Pro-2A Student Shuts Down Anti-Gun Syllabus

Opinion

anti-gun syllabus
Pro-2A Student Shuts Down Anti-Gun Syllabus

Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- Quick action by a vigilant pro-Second Amendment student at the University of Kansas has resulted in shutting down a professor’s anti-gun syllabus. After KU senior Victoria Snitsar shared a copy of the offending syllabus with university officials, the university forced the professor to remove language from his class syllabus that is not “in compliance with university guidelines and state law.”

In his syllabus history professor Eric Rath requested students “not bring firearms to class or anywhere I am present.”

Referencing widely discredited and biased gun control claims, Rath’s syllabus warned students that carrying a firearm could increase a student’s likelihood of being killed in an active shooter situation. Rath’s syllabus attempted to suppress the exercise of a constitutionally guaranteed right.

A university spokesperson didn’t indicate if the professor of Japanese history would face any disciplinary action.

Kansas, along with 9 other states, allows law-abiding citizens to carry firearms on campus. Rath used taxpayer resources to produce a syllabus that quotes extensively from the partisan gun control advocacy group, the Giffords Law Center for the Prevention of Gun Violence. His syllabus omits the fact that in Kansas, as in every other state, campus carry laws make students, faculty, and staff safer. In the first year of the new law, campus crime dropped by 13 at Kansas University. Furthermore, campus police did not record a single weapons violation on campus for the entire year.

Kansas State Representative Blake Carpenter (R-81) says this kind of anti-gun bias has no place in our public universities and is pleased the university is taking action to correct the anti-gun syllabus. “It is unacceptable for professors to intimidate students like this and try to force their political views on them.”

He encourages students to be vigilant to these types of attacks on our rights and bring them to light.

Snitsar, who alerted national media outlets to the syllabus, is pleased with the university’s response. She says no student should feel unwelcomed in a classroom. She says she has always been active in calling out anti-Second Amendment bias on campus and lives by the Ronald Reagan motto, ‘freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.’

“I just don’t want any other student to have to experience that kind of intimidation by a person in authority,” Snitsar said. “That is not right.”


National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

  • 12 thoughts on “Pro-2A Student Shuts Down Anti-Gun Syllabus

    1. Conceal carry means just that. If I were in his class he would never know I have a firearm on my person unless a situation developed where I needed to draw it for use. I have a feeling that the prof would be very grateful at that precise moment in time that not everyone was holding nothing but their Johnson..

    2. I’m thinking that it would be a LOT easier for the eminent ‘professor’ to isolate himself from us, the 100 million or so law abiding Citizen gun owners than it would be for us to avoid him. Oh wait, he would probably ‘require’ us to wear some sort of distinguishing device to identify us as those law abiding Citizen gun owners. Perhaps a bright yellow star, oh wait, that was already used. Never mind. OK how about a bright orange gun shaped patch (one in front and one in back?). Nah, he just needs to go to one of the multitude of currently existing ‘gun free’ zones where he will be perfectly safe. There won’t be any of them crazy gun nuts there……………

    3. I think that prof really likes the sound of his voice, and the sight of his words on paper. That is the wordiest syllabus I’ve ever seen, so long that I doubt one in a hundred students actually read the thing.

      Yes, he’s a hoplophobe, a leftist statist, and no one I’d ever want to sit through a class with.

    4. Do you think that Eric C. Rath, Ph.D. might qualify as one of these, or all of the categories listed below?

      Time to quote various authors on this subject!

      Hoplophobia
      Hoplophobia is a political neologism coined by retired American military officer Jeff Cooper as a pejorative to describe an “irrational aversion to weapons.” It is also used to describe the “fear of firearms” or the “fear of armed citizens.” HOPLOPHOBIA. (1966) From the Greek___(weapon) plus __ (terror).

      An unreasoning, obsessive neurotic fear of weapons as such, usually accompanied by an irrational feeling that weapons possess a will or consciousness for evil, apart from the will of their user. Not equivalent to normal apprehension in the presence of an armed enemy. Hoplon also means instrument, tool or tackle, but it is the root of hoplite (man-at-arms, gendarme) and thus principally signifies “weapon” in English derivations.
      Col. Jeff Cooper, widely acclaimed as “The Father of the Modern Technique of Shooting,” introduced the two-handed grip at eye level, when it was standard for people to shoot one-handed, and often from the hip. Far less known, Cooper was a historian with a Master’s Degree in History from the University of Calif. at Riverside and he held a B.A. from Stanford in Political Science.
      Hoplophobia, n. Irrational, morbid fear of guns (c. 1966, coined by Col. Jeff Cooper, from the Greek hoplites, weapon; see his book Principles of Personal Defense). May cause sweating, faintness, discomfort, rapid pulse, nausea, sleeplessness, nondescript fears, more, at mere thought of guns. Presence of working firearms may cause panic attack. Hoplophobe, hoplophobic.
      Hoplophobes are common and should never be involved in setting gun policies. Point out hoplophobic behavior when noticed, it is dangerous, sufferers deserve pity, and should seek treatment. When confronted about their condition, hoplophobes typically go into denial, a common characteristic of the affliction. Sometimes helped by training, or by coaching at a range, a process known to psychiatry as “desensitization,” a useful methodology in treating many phobias.
      Hoplophobic behavior is often obvious from self-evident irrational responses to real-life situations and is frequently seen in the news media and public debate. When a criminal commits a crime using a gun, hoplophobes often seek to disarm, or make lists of, innocent people who didn’t do anything, a common, classic and irrational response.
      The idea of creating an enormously expensive government-run 90-million-name database of legitimate gun owners — which would not include armed criminals — is a prime example of an irrational hoplophobic response to the issue of crime. How writing your name in such a list would help stop crime is never even addressed. (See, “The Only Question About Gun Registration”)
      An effort is underway nationally to have Hoplophobia recognized in the DSM, the official directory of mental ailments. Resistance from elements in the medical profession suggest this may be quite difficult, but that does not reduce the importance of recognizing a widespread, virulent, detrimental mental condition commonly found in the populace. The actual number of undiagnosed hoplophobes is unknown but believed to be in the tens of millions.
      Read Dr. Sarah Thompson’s brilliant essay on the medical nature of this affliction, the article that got the ball rolling on serious medical study of a condition affecting millions of Americans.
      Read Dr. Bruce Eimers’s insightful short description of the problem.
      Hoplophobes are dangerous. They should not be involved in setting public policy.
      Hoplophobes are victims. They are sick and need help.
      Hoplophobes deserve sympathy. It’s not their fault they are afflicted.
      Hoplophobes should seek treatment. Help shoot for a cure.

      People who are terrified of and hate guns — hoplophobes — don’t care about anything rational, and we waste our time on such arguments. They want guns to go away. They don’t trust guns. They don’t trust people who have guns, and especially people who like guns. The only exception is “official” people with guns, meaning, they’re from the government, a source of relief.
      They will seize on anything else, because Hoplophobia is an irrational fear. Conveniently for them, the language of the report itself says that the limits of this individual right have not been clearly defined.

      To a Hoplophobes, that means your right to arms can be legally limited to a single gun, with a single round, that does not operate, and is locked away, with government holding the key. And even that leaves them nervous.

      What we really need is research and medical-treatment programs for the poor, unfortunate people who are terrified of guns, won’t go near guns, who would not defend themselves or their families if they had to, and who, very plainly, hate guns.

      Hate is a terrible thing.

      It must be confronted vigorously, righteously, and in a forthright manner. Logic and law do not confront hate or help lessen it. We must learn not to tolerate gun hate, anywhere we find it.

      Hoplophobic behavior in government, schools, and all facets of public life must be recognized for what it is, exposed, and rooted out or treated. Seemingly utopian pacifists are free to profess their love of a weapon-free world, but they must start by disarming the evil, criminal and tyrannical. Disarming the public is a vent for their twisted fear and hatred, a grotesque affront to freedom, and unacceptable. Disarming an innocent person is an act of violence.

      Guns save lives. Guns stop crime. Guns are why America is still free. The history of freedom is inextricably tied to the development of weapons (an interesting study, by the way, if you have the time to examine it). Good people need guns. Efforts to end that are immoral and unjust, and when done by government, is a direct failure to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” That’s a violation of the oath of office, which should lead to removal from office and possibly even criminal charges.

      The people we elect or hire for public service should be screened for latent or overt gun hatred, and disqualified if such hatred is found, before it can do any more harm to our nation and its values.
      It is well past the time when the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), the catalog of recognized mental infirmities, includes “Hoplophobia,” in all its forms, and serious medical research is conducted to identify and treat this pernicious condition that threatens us all. The doctors among you should begin raising this issue. If you’re not a doctor but have one or two, ask them about it.
      The opponents of gun rights come in four fundamental categories:

      Utopian Idealists – Dreamers willing to ignore human nature (anger, hostility, temper, greed, lust, hunger, poverty, want, megalomania, social pathologies, etc.) in the vain hope for a world where no one ever needs to defend themselves or others; Result: misguided efforts to disarm the public since no one should ever be capable of exerting lethal force for any reason. Fairly rare.

      Routine Bigots – Ignorant gun haters who, generally, have never actually seen a real gun much less fired one, and hate what they don’t know; strong corollaries with race haters; Result: Vigorous anti-rights profile if left alone, however they often resolve their blind hatred when education removes the ignorance — frequent anecdotes of such folks “converting” after their first time at a range. Quite common.

      Hoplophobes — Unfortunate souls afflicted with a phobic terror of firearms, deserving of pity, and in need of medical attention; Result: Though they should never be involved in setting policy on self-defense, national security, or Second Amendment rights, they often insinuate themselves into such positions, their need for treatment goes unattended, and they cause grievous social harm. Easily mistaken for plain bigots. Too common.

      Power Mongers – Like some at the U.N or many anti-gun-rights politicians, they know full well that an armed public interferes with their plans, and they insidiously use lies about the gun issue, and “disarmament (of you but not them) as a road to peace” as a power base and source of support; Result: truly evil, tyrants’ who ultimately suppress human rights, contribute to global genocides, live an elite lifestyle, care not for their fellow citizens. Rare but extremely dangerous.

      Example of the Sickness:

      “My own view on gun control is simple: I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”
      –Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Harvard School of Public Health

      The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties. Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most societies have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale.
      Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.
      In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories. Even though their motives may vary they all pose a mortal threat to liberty.

      ELITISTS
      Many of those in favor of oppressive firearms legislation are best classed as elitists. Elitists frequently identify with a peer group based on wealth, power, rank, social status, occupation, education, ethnic group, etc. and perceive themselves and their peers as inherently superior to and more responsible than the “common people”, thus more deserving of certain rights. Since elitists practically consider those outside their class or caste as members of another species, that most anti-elitist list of laws, the Bill of Rights is viewed by them as anathema. Naturally, the Second Amendment is their first target as it serves as the supporting structure for other nine amendments.

      AUTHORITARIANS
      Another type of individual who favors the restriction of private gun ownership is the authoritarian. Authoritarian personalities are characterized by their belief in unquestioning obedience to an authority figure or group and a disdain for individual freedom of action, expression, and judgement. Those with authoritarian personalities function well in symbiosis with elitists occupying positions of power. Because authoritarians repress their desires for autonomy they harbor a deep resentment toward free and independent thinkers. Of course, authoritarians do not want firearms in the hands of the general population as this constitutes a major obstacle to fulfilling their pathological and obsessive desire to control people.

      CRIMINALS
      It goes without saying that career criminals would like to see the public disarmed for obvious reasons. A well-armed population makes crimes such as assault, robbery, and burglary hazardous for the perpetrator and this is bad for “business.” Also, even non-violent or “white collar” criminals live in constant fear of retribution from the public that they financially bleed and would therefore prefer that the public be disarmed. Evidence supporting this hypothesis can be gathered by studying the Second Amendment voting records of those legislators who have been convicted of willful misconduct.

      THE FEARFUL
      Cowards are easily or excessively frightened by things and situations that are recognized as dangerous, difficult, or painful. It therefore stands to reason that the mere thought of guns and the circumstances in which they are employed causes them abnormal amounts of stress. Rather than admit their weakness to themselves or others, some fearful types jump on the anti-gun bandwagon and purport moral superiority to those “barbaric” enough to employ lethal force against armed assailants by claiming various humanitarian and pragmatic motives for allowing evil to remain unchecked. Many of these individuals harbor an envy induced resentment toward anyone with the means, skill, and will to successfully stand up to criminal aggression.
      The desire to assert oneself exists in nearly everyone, wimps included, so cowards seek out tame enemies against whom they can ply their pitiful brand of machismo. Instead of the sociopaths who commit acts of wanton aggression with guns, guns themselves and responsible gun owners are the main targets of their attacks. After all, real criminals are dangerous, so cowards prefer doing battle with inanimate objects that do not have a will of their own and decent law-abiding people whose high level of integrity and self-discipline prevent them from physically lashing out against mere verbal assailants, however obnoxious they may be.

      IDEOLOGICAL CHAMELEONS
      Ideological chameleons follow the simple social strategy of avoiding controversy and confrontation by espousing the beliefs of the people in their immediate vicinity or advocating the philosophy of those who scream the loudest in a debate. Quite a few supposedly pro Second Amendment public officials have shown themselves to be ideological chameleons when they supported restrictions on the private possession of military style semiautomatic rifles following recent atrocities in which such firearms were employed. Like their reptilian namesake, people who merely blend in with the ambient philosophical foliage seem to have little insight into the moral and social ramifications of their actions. Political and/or economic gain along with avoidance of confrontation are their only goals.

      SECURITY MONOPOLISTS
      Security monopolists are those members and representatives of public and private security providing concerns who want the means of self-protection out of private hands so that they can command high fees for protecting the citizenry against the rising tide of crime. These profiteers stand to lose a great deal of capital if citizens can efficiently defend themselves. To the security monopolist, each criminal who enters and exits the revolving door of justice is a renewable source of revenue providing jobs for police, social workers, victim counsellors, judges, prison employees, security guards, burglar alarm installers, locksmiths, and others employed by the security monopolies or their satellite organizations. No wonder it is so common for an honest citizen to be more ruthlessly hounded by the authorities when he shoots a criminal in self-defense than a criminal who shoots honest citizens.

      THE DYSFUNCTIONALLY UNWORLDLY
      Just as a limb will weaken and atrophy if not used, so will aspects of the mind fail to develop if nothing in one’s environment exists to challenge them. People who have led excessively sheltered lives tend to have a difficult time understanding certain cause and effect relationships and an even harder time appreciating just how cruel the world can be. These dysfunction ally unworldly types are truly perplexed at the very notion of firearms ownership regarding defense. To them, tyranny and crime are things that happen in other places far removed from their “civilized” universe. Also, they do not understand the value of private property and why some people would fight for theirs since they never had to work hard to acquire what they possess. While those suffering from dysfunctional unworldliness are most often people who have been born into considerable wealth, this condition is also common in members of the clergy, academicians, practioners of the arts, and others who have spent much of their lives cloistered in a safe and pampering environment. While many of these people may be quite talented and intelligent in some ways, their extreme naivety makes them easy prey for the tyrants who use them for the financial support and favorable advertisement of their regimes. The anti-gun movement is well represented and financed by the dysfunction ally unworldly.
      The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and it behooves all vigilant lovers of liberty to know and be able to recognize the various types of arms prohibitionists and understand their differing but equally dangerous motives. Acquiring knowledge of one’s foes is the first step toward defeating them. We must never forget that a threat to private firearms ownership is a threat to all freedoms.
      The inalienable and fundamental right to keep and bear arms which is enumerated by (but predates) the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about hunting, gun collecting, or target shooting. Its purpose is to ensure that every responsible American personally possesses the means to defend the Republic from all forms of tyranny, within and without. It is what permits the other nine Amendments in the Bill of Rights to be more than mere hollow phrases on a piece of paper. Its free exercise is the antithesis of serfdom and the only meaningful form of holocaust insurance known to man.
      We must never insult and degrade the spirits of our Founding Fathers by permitting the Second Amendment, the pillar of freedom, to be destroyed by the cold flame of legislative ink, and or the anti-constitutional ideologies being taught to are young adults at the universities throughout this country.

    5. Eric Rath was the name of the offending professor according to this article. The offending professor was teaching a Japanese history class according to this article.

      The University of Kansas reports that a “Eric C. Rath, Ph.D.” is History Professor at the University of Kansas.

      Eric C. Rath’s contact information, according to the University of Kansas, is given below,

      Eric C. Rath, Ph.D.
      College of Liberal Arts and Sciences – History Professor
      [email protected]
      Wescoe Hall
      Room 3624
      University of Kansas
      1445 Jayhawk Blvd.
      Lawrence, KS 66045

      Do not, repeat NOT, harass Eric C. Rath, Ph.D.

      If, however, you would like to express to Eric C. Rath, Ph.D, in the most respectful way possible, your opinion of the incident cited in the above article — then Eric C. Rath, Ph.D., according to the University of Kansas, is:

      [email protected]

      .
      .
      .

    6. Teachers and administrators DO have a certain amount of legitimate authority in the schools – that’s a given. But I learned at an early age – sometime in elementary school, in fact – that a great many teachers and school bureaucrats constantly keep trying to extend their authority beyond its legitimate bounds – sometimes FAR beyond. Shutting them down when they go overboard is the right and proper thing to do. What really needs to happen is to impose a personal penalty – preferably financial – on the individuals who do this. In this instance, since school resources were used to generate the syllabus, a deduction for the expenses ought to be made from the professor’s paycheck.

    7. hey prof. dips**t, it’s NOYFB. try looking for work in the coastal commie states if you are nervous about 2A.
      U think constitutional rights end in your s-hole class?

      1. I cannot immediately think of any college major that would classify Professor Dip’s offering as a requirement. Of course, it might be considered a (tangential) elective class for, perhaps, world history majors or Japanese language majors… but a required class, no. Just a random thought, but If enough students ignored his class… the university might (with financial justification) rethink the need for his class at all.

    Leave a Comment 12 Comments

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