At San Antonio College a geography instructor Charles K. Smith doesn’t like the notion of law abiding students exercising their right to keep and bear arms. So in protest, Professor Smith went to his class last week sporting a camouflaged bulletproof vest and helmet. He said he wore it because he doesn’t feel safe.
Before I really get into this, let me clarify that I don’t actually mind Professor Smith’s means of protest. It falls within the law, he is not denying his students their rights, and all in all it is pretty harmless.
His buffoonery that I mention in the title of this article is based on what he actually SAYS.
The first thing is that he is wearing the bulletproof vest and helmet because he doesn’t feel safe.
If that was his real concern then he should go and get himself a gun because all a bullet proof vest is going to do to stop a shooter is to make them get closer and shoot him in the face. Not the hardest task when they first shoot him in the leg. Think of all the people who wear bullet proof vests to begin with. Really think about it. Cops, the military, politicians, celebrities maybe, famous people in general? What do they ALL have in common. They either directly or have nearby (in the form of a bodyguard) a gun at hand.
Body armor only helps when there is a way to STOP bullets coming at you. So if Professor Smith was really concerned about staying safe he would get himself a gun to go along with his body armor but that is not what this is about. It’s not about actually about BEING safe but rather FEELING safe. An old mantra of uneducated gun controllers. It’s why we are cursed with things like gun free zones. Does nothing to actually keep us safe but gives gun controllers the feelz so they can delude themselves in this false sense of safety.
Here’s a photo of him all geared up via James Velten:
Smith’s buffoonery doesn’t end there. His completely out of touch rational almost boggles the mind.
Smith, who in his ten years teaching at the University never had a gun pulled on him had this gem come out of his mouth:
“I realize students were carrying guns on campus illegally, but now it’s legal to do so. It increases the chances of something happening.”
So Smith admits that guns were ALL READY on campus being carried against the rules, but now that law abiding citizens are now legally carrying firearms on campus, NOW it’s a problem and he feels unsafe? What the hell is wrong with this guy. Thank God he isn’t teaching Logic.
He also regurgitates the gun control zealots notion that the minute a gun owner gets mad they just shoot people in a blind rage:
“Used to, when they got mad at me, they had to go home to get the gun and had time to cool off. Now they will have it with them.”
This hearkens back to that old gun controller favorite; waiting periods. But when you couple it with his previous statement about guns illegally being brought on campus before hand anyways, his whole train of though and logic of his argument (as if there was one) crumbles under his own ignorance.
Professor Smith, a geography teacher, goes on to give us his assumptions based on…well…I have no idea other than his hoplophobic gun control zealotry:
“My assumption is that you will have more people carrying guns – that will lead to problems. It always has. There is nothing on this planet worth a human life.”
There are two things wrong with this statement. The first is that more acts of firearm violence are done in so called gun free zones than in places where guns are allowed. That’s not an assumption that is a fact. Yes yes, I know progressive gun controllers have little ability or want to deal with inconvenient things like facts or logic but there it is. Secondly, there is something on this planet worth a human life: MY life. Don’t read that like its written by the author but by you the reader. I am pretty sure, baring your children or loved ones that your life is more important to you than most other lives on this planet so when someone is threatening you with violence I hope that it is not in a gun free zone whose sign they have ignored and you are able and willing to protect your own life by taking theirs.
And finally, we get to the kicker. Professor Smith has had people on both sides of the issue weigh in and he states that his protest isn’t directed towards San Antonio College because they are simply following the law (novel idea I know) but with the law itself. Smith actually has the gall to spew this little tidbit out at the end to defend his actions seemingly oblivious to his own hypocrisy:
“Some of them were okay and some of them weren’t, but it’s freedom of speech.”
Smith actually has the nerve to spout off on the 1st Amendment while protesting other peoples right of exercising the 2nd Amendment.
Like I said from the beginning, what a buffoon.
Send this to friend
