New York Times, September 16, 2013: WASHINGTON — A former Navy reservist killed at least 12 people on Monday in a mass shooting at a secure military facility …

In response to the news of the shooting, University of Kansas Journalism professor David Guth tweeted:

The blood is on the hands of the NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.

Professor Guth issued a statement Thursday evening, October 24, 2013 apologizing for his tweet that "caused a great deal of pain for many people," according to the Huff Post, College:

“Some interpreted my tweet differently than it was intended," Guth wrote. "I don't want anyone's children hurt. The fact my words were misconstrued is my fault."

Guth said that he was a professional communicator but didn't do a good job of explaining his position.

Inadvertently, Professor Guth’s comments contrast the attitudes in Kansas regarding the first two amendments to the United States Constitution. 

The First Amendment states in part: 

Congress shall make no law …   abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ....

The Second Amendment states: 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

May a university professor freely and openly state his personal opinion regarding the application of the Second Amendment, if he does not threaten any individual or infringe on others' rights?

Professor Guth, in an emotional outburst most would expect to be protected by the First Amendment, articulated the frustration of multitudes of Americans at how the Second Amendment is applied in the United States today, and his perception of the consequences of current policies.  He expressed his fervent and gut-wrenching wish that the members of the NRA, the leading advocate for the uncontrolled gun sales that result from the current interpretation of the Second Amendment, might in the future personally experience the horror of the choices they foist upon others.  He was not hoping for further tragedy.  Any literate person could see that the professor gave full voice to those who wish the consequences of unbridled access to arms could be born by those who support those policies.

The University of Kansas has chosen to curtail free speech when normative application of the First Amendment is viewed as threatening current interpretation of the Second Amendment.  Thus, the University of Kansas, when the Second Amendment is viewed as being threatened by the First Amendment, has preferred the Second Amendment over the First.

It's an astonishing thought: that we have reached that point in Kansas in which the Right to Bear Arms is more precious than the Right to Free Speech.  I ask: which is a greater threat to democracy: curtailment of free speech or curbs on the right to bear firearms?

For myself, I have no doubt:  the University of Kansas has chosen the Second Amendment over the First, and endangered our democracy with their error.