Guest Post: Anti-Gun Newspaper Hires Armed Guards – Reveals Its Own Hypocrisy

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

Sometimes I just have to smile when faced with anti-gun propagandists, regardless of the vicious statements they make, because I know from years of past experience in this debate that because of their deep rooted hypocrisy, they WILL inevitably make my pro-gun case for me.  All I have to do is sit back and wait for them to contradict themselves...

After the Sandy Hook attacks, the NRA responded with the suggested measure of establishing armed security guards at public schools in order to ensure there is a defensive presence in place to meet any violent threat.  I personally agree with the idea, though I believe it doesn’t go far enough.  Frankly, allowing teachers to legally carry on school grounds would be a much more effective deterrent, promoting the ability of average citizens to protect themselves rather than constantly relying on some uniformed official. 

The Obama Administration, of course, responded negatively to the NRA’s position and has yet to even address or acknowledge the idea of armed teachers.  Obama shrugged off the NRA, claiming he was “skeptical” of the armed security concept, all while sending his own children to a private school protected by at least 11 armed sentries not counting Secret Service agents:

So, Obama is “skeptical” of an armed presence at your children’s school, but not his own children’s school?  Yes, it’s incredibly hypocritical.  My question to the president would be:  If armed guards don’t make a difference, why have your children surrounded by them?  I would be interested to hear his response.  Perhaps he believes his children are more important than our own…

Then there’s that wretched gun grabbing swamp hag, Senator Diane Feinstein; a true anti-gun zealot who has openly admitted that if she thought she could get away with it, she would pursue the complete disarmament of the entire U.S. citizenry.  The same zealot who after the Oklahoma City bombing had this to say at a senate hearing:

“I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me…”

Apparently she saw the need for firearms in the defense of her own life, but not the need for the average citizen to have the same opportunity.

And what about Senator Chuck Schumer, who called for the president to use the excuse of “national security” and terrorism to force through restrictive gun legislation?  The man who also voted against a bill which would have prevented outside entities like the UN from asserting gun control treaties that affect the American public?  Well, Chuck has his own concealed carry permit in the state of New York, of all places, and still continues his antigun rhetoric.  Again, do they see themselves as part of a higher and more valuable class of people?  How do they explain these contradictions in their position?

What about media gigolo Michael Moore and his theater of the absurd?  Playing the role of gun fan while at the same time incessantly promoting gun control rhetoric using skewed information and disingenuous talking points?  The same man who suggested that the sound of a racking shotgun on tape is as effective as having the real thing uses bodyguards armed with THE REAL THING, one of whom was recently arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon into JFK Airport:,2933,144921,00.html#ixzz2FnQC65J3

But anti-gun propagandists with armed bodyguards are nothing new.  In fact, anti-gun mayor Michael Bloomberg travels with a cadre of five to six bodyguards, all packing heat.  Why do these people who say they despise guns and gun ownership continue surrounding themselves with the same “devilish weaponry”?  It’s simple; because the mere reality of gun ownership deters criminal attack.  If it didn’t, they wouldn’t rely on firearms at all. 

Apparently, this same fact has suddenly dawned on The Journal News in New York, which has received a flurry of attention (mostly negative) for their insane idea of publishing maps of New York suburban neighborhoods “outing” the names and addresses of all those who have concealed carry permits.  The Journal News has yet to officially address why they chose to do this, but the paper is, needless to say, anti-gun; publishing articles that call for ALL firearms owners, not just those with CCW, to be cataloged and mapped:

Their rationale?  All gun owners should be mapped so that anti-gun citizens can “know who their neighbors are” and the “possible danger that surrounds them”.  The assertion that the newspaper is making is that all gun owners should be treated as potential threats, like convicted pedophiles.  Their philosophy is to consider us guilty until proven innocent.

It is an interesting and manipulative strategy.  The intent is first to promote a national firearms database, which just happens to be a primary part of Diane Feinstein’s coming gun control legislation, as well as to cultivate a kind of “culture of shame” surrounding gun ownership.  The Journal News motto should be:  “Own a gun?  We’ll make sure everyone knows what a monster you are…” 

The paper follows with the argument that people should be allowed to know who in a neighborhood is armed so that they can make an “informed decision” on whether or not they want to live there.  As I have stated in recent articles on the gun control issue, the anti-gun fears of terrified yuppies are not our concern.  They should be required to control THEIR fear, not allowed to control OUR guns.  Their fears do not and should not override our constitutional liberties, and frankly, I couldn’t care less if they want to live in a gun free neighborhood or not. 

Using the gun map philosophy, a universe of invasive collectivist enforcement becomes available.  Why not, for instance, create a map of every person who has been diagnosed by a psychiatrist and given psychotropic medications?  Since almost every person who has committed atrocities like Sandy Hook in the course of the past two decades was under the influence of psychotropics at the time it only follows that everyone on these drugs is a potential threat according to the logic of The Journal News.  I suspect though that at least half of their staff, just like half of New York, is highly medicated, and probably would not endorse such a measure. 

County Officials in New York State are now revolting against the gun map initiatives of The Journal News, denying them further information on permit holders in other counties in order to avoid possible danger to those citizens.  Reuters has responded to this unexpectedly reasonable response by, surprise, attacking it:

State officials denying The Journal access to permit holder names and addresses is so far one of the only sane things being done in the state of New York when it comes to the gun debate, but according to the Reuters opinion piece, such an action is “crazy”.  Is permit holder information a matter of public record?  Yes, for now.  Does that mean that The Journal News should be allowed to exploit that information to satiate their own personal zealotry while making it easy for criminals to devise threat assessments?  The State of New York doesn’t seem to think so.  Honestly, if I was a non-gun owning citizen in New York, I would be much more upset at The Journal than if I was on their list.  Essentially, the newspaper has just advertised who on their map is a potentially easy target… 

Finally, displaying their own grand level of hypocrisy, The Journal News has hired ARMED security guards to protect them from the possible wrath of the angry populace they put at risk:

Is the staff of the newspaper in danger?  Well…yes, of course they are!  That kind of blind idiocy and hubris tends to attract wild fury in response.  However, the point remains; when faced with conceivable violence, they turned to the practical solution of armed intervention, just like ANYONE with any sense would.  They admonish us for wanting the right to defend ourselves in the most efficient way available (private firearms ownership) while at the same time surrounding themselves with a shield of guns. 

The gun grabber personality is interminably flawed, but it could be summarized thus:

They believe the whole of society should cater to their personal concerns.  That we should give up our rights just to make them feel safer.  And, that they are somehow a step above the rest of us, and do not need to practice what they preach.  My question is, why should we go out of our way to please such weaklings and frauds?  I have yet to hear a good reason...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
IvyMike's picture


"All men are created EQUAL." ~Declaration of Independence

What other nation proffers such a Egalitarian Clause—which is what academics should have called the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights—in its foundational governmental document?

Egalitarian dispersal (power-sharing) of State power is the intended purpose behind the “right to bear arms.”

The Americans’ egalitarian sentiments expressed in the Second Amendment issues directly from close contact with the egalitarian, power-sharing Non-State eastern woodlands tribes, as documented in anthropologist Jack Weatherford’s Native Roots: How the Indians Enriched America (1992) and Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World (1988) and Jame’s Axtell’s The Invasion Within: The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America (1986) (especially chapter 13, The White Indians of Colonial America.)

A good example of that dispersed—egalitarian—power being used against an entrenched, elite hierarchy, is The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) in August 1946.

America’s Constitutional Egalitarian Clause coincides with how Christopher Boehm describes the evolution of egalitarianism in his Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior (Harvard University Press, 1999) as a “reverse dominance hierarchy,” that depends on the less powerful to band together “to deliberately dominate their potential master if they wish to remain equal.”

Zer0head's picture

but I guess the author is  in favor of limiting freedom of speech/press (1st amendment)

Apparently, this same fact has suddenly dawned on The Journal News in New York, which has received a flurry of attention (mostly negative) for their insane idea of publishing maps of New York suburban neighborhoods “outing” the names and addresses

IvyMike's picture

Wrong guess, try again.

The 2nd Amendment and the 1st Amendment are two sides of the same Egalitarian coin.

Egalitarian merely means "NOBODY LORDING IT OVER OTHERS."

While City-Statism (Civilization) is brutal, the Bill of Rights did do a fairly decent job of mitigating the worst horrors of City-State society, at least while it wasn't so crowded with city-slickers.

"When they get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe."

~Jefferson to James Madison, December 20, 1787

There's the whole Red/Blue state fight in a nutshell.

IvyMike's picture

Egalitarian merely means "NOBODY LORDING IT OVER OTHERS."

No wonder LoLbertarians like Rothtard hated egalitarianism; his ilk want to Lord-It-Over you via wage-slavery.

It's always funny watching control-freak LoLbertarians piss on the Declaration of Independence and it's famous egalitarian proclamation:

"All Men Are Created Equal."

Oh, how they try to explain the plain meaning of that away!

"We libertarians do not oppose hierarchy or command or authority..." ~Stephan Kinsella

Because LoLbertarians want to be your BOSS. Control-freaks all; well, most. (Of course, they don't want any control over them, but that's hypocritical.)'s picture

If equality is good and freedom is bad then the antebellum slave population must have been the happiest people on Earth. If Lincoln had just enslaved all the white folks instead of freeing the blacks it would be a perfect nation. I weep at the lack of a Disemancipation Proclamation.

IvyMike's picture

Equality and Freedom are the same thing.


Read your anthropology and evolutionary biology, unlike Rothtards and Leftards who twist the meaning of egalitarian to their own political faction's meaning.

Again, I reference:

Christopher Boehm (1999) Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Harvard University Press.'s picture

You are confused. Rothbard believed that no one had a right to use violence against others and that all interaction should be voluntary.

LM's picture

Make that 'to initiate violence'. Rothbard certainly did not oppose self-defense.

IvyMike's picture

Rothbard wasn't against initiation of violence; he only claimed to be.

Here his City-Statist teeth are bared for all to plainly see:

Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment...unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares?

~Murray Rothbard's picture

Rothbard was an anarchist. He was saying that if you're forced to live under statist control then you might as well insist that the state should do the job it claims to do.


We must try, short of ultimate privatization, to operate government facilities in a manner most conducive to a business, or to neighborhood control.


IvyMike's picture

You're like a Biblical Fundamentalist who thinks that if they find one verse they like, it somehow magically negates the verse that is rather embarrassing.

Using your standard of intellectual honesty, Lenin was an advoate of capitalism. And yes, he said so:

If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism, that would be a victory." ~Lenin, 1918

City-Statism (Civilization) reformers from Lenin to Rothbard will tell you all kinds of bullshit to get their way. And then there are fools like you who will believe it.'s picture



You're like a Biblical Fundamentalist who thinks that if they find one verse they like, it somehow magically negates the verse that is rather embarrassing.


You're like a Biblical Fundemantalist who believes that if the Koran has a passage which conflicts with your theology that there is nothing of value in the book at all. I never claimed that Rothbard was perfect but you inist that a single quote taken out of context proves him to be the Devil. Futhermore you believe that that single quote makes all who espouse voluntaryism on their own terms to be devils as well.

IvyMike's picture

You quote your Rothtard; I'll quote scholarly sources from evolutionary biology and anthropology disciplines.

And if you think those are the equivalent of the Koran, you've further revealed the depths of your intellectual depravity.'s picture

In my analogy I equated Rothbard's work with the Koran and you with the Christian fundamentalist who could see no value in that work due to your objections over a single, out-of-context quote. You've further revealed the dearth of your intellectual ability.

IvyMike's picture

I quoted nothing out-of-context.

You have no more idea of what "out-of-context" means than a Biblical Literalist.

Here's your sign, True Believer:

309,737 views's picture


I quoted nothing out-of-context.


Now you're simply lying. The Rothbard quote you cited is part of a larger article which you did not cite.


Did you fail to realize that I've been using additional quotes from that article to show that your interpretation is superficial at best?

Please excuse me, but I'm off to the gun shop.


Michaelwiseguy's picture

We should have an American Citizen Gun Sponsoring Program for Foreign Citizens of Mexico, China, Russian nationals, etc.

These guns and rifles can be obtained by foreign citizens so they have the means to suppress and replace their own tyrannical governments.

The Octogenarians in Congress know their days are numbered by old age. They're all starting to drop dead like ugly old flies. We just have to keep up the offensive against their tyrannical legislation and wait them out till they drop dead like Inouye and Bird or just quit like Leiberman, Dodd, Frant, etc or be voted out of office by a miracle like Luger.

EnslavethechildrenforBen's picture


IvyMike's picture

Ah, just like a Biblical Literalist, you claim the whole Bible has to be quoted--or only the quotes you approve--to suit your version of "context."

But enjoy going to the gunshop and participating in the egalitarian power-sharing proffered by the Second Amendment.

eatthebanksters's picture

Why would any American expect anything less from the politicians that talk out of both sides of their mouth...they passed Obamacare and yet are not subject to the program, they just voted themselves a pay raise in a brutal economy anfter screaming about reducing spending.  Go figure?


Hey, Ivy Mike.

Like Joe Friday used to say " Just the facts, maam, just the facts. "

Read 'em and weep, you dried up intellecual windbag of elitist propaganda.

If you were burning alive, i wouldn't even piss on you to put out the flames - I would attribute your demise to natural selection, egalitarian style.


China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated 
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. 
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. 
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. 
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! 
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. 
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! 
If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.

Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

Some how the person who wrote this email left out the Jews in Germany, another 3 to 5 million killed,  don’t be so naïve as to think it can’t happen here.


In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total

of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

If you are a liberal, exterminated doesn’t mean their rights were respected and due process was performed.





IvyMike's picture



I am AGAINST gun control, dimwit. Can't you read? Jeeesh!!!!

Jendrzejczyk's picture

We applaud your support of proper aim and safety when using a firearm.


Tyler, why is access denied to his account?

Hoping you haven't banned him so that we can see ZH'rs rip him apart.

Bread (not much left actually) and Circuses is all I have left.'s picture


Hoping you haven't banned him so that we can see ZH'rs rip him apart.


Beating trolls over the head with their own flawed logic is entertaining up to a point but akak is right -- those who self righteously bandy about straw men and ad hominems obliterate any chance of rational debate.

Jendrzejczyk's picture

Where do we draw the line?

To protect our 2nd A rights, we must defend his 1st.'s picture

ZH is private property. It isn't a government publication. The First Amendment doesn't apply.'s picture


Ah, just like a Biblical Literalist, you claim the whole Bible has to be quoted--or only the quotes you approve--to suit your version of "context."


You extracted a quote from an article and used it to misrepresent Rothbard's intent in that article. I presented other quotes from that article as well as a link to the article itself to show you the quote in context. The article is only 2.500 words long but you refuse to read it because you think 2,500 words is as long as the Bible.

Is it any wonder that you fail to understand Rothbard when you can't even spend ten minutes reading what the man actually wrote? Are we supposed to recognize you as some sort of authority on Rothbard's views in light of the pride you express in never actually having read his work?

HoofHearted's picture

AnAnonymous is now IvyMike? Typical Ivy type it appears....

IvyMike's picture

Can't address any issues I bring up? So sad.

economics9698's picture

Tyler blow this guy out, he is adding nothing.

quasimodo's picture

Your village is calling, now STFU and go back to your room. Mommy will have cookies and warm milk waiting.

HellFish's picture

Totally doing a perfect impersonation of a leftist credentialed libtard.  Ivy (League?) LOL.

IvyMike's picture

Ivy Mike was the first thermonuclear test, dimwit. Read history much?

Oh right, you're a LoLbertarian.

And we know they're all closet Marxists.

"This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right...Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics."

~Robert Locke
Marxism of the Right, The American Conservative, March 14, 2005

Jam Akin's picture

Pretty fucked up, ain't ya?

IvyMike's picture

Do you charge full market value for doing your Soviet Psychiatry over the Internetz? I hope so!

Bill: $0


Jendrzejczyk's picture

You are fun and scrappy, a total Richard, but contrary opinions strengthen our knowledge.

Cathartes Aura's picture

agreed J.

but apparently rubbing too many the *wrong* way, and we can't have that now. . .

if you were looking at the timeline, IvyMike was around for just over a week.

nmewn's picture

Setting up strawman arguments & misrepresentations does tend to rub people the wrong way ;-)

But...back to the topic at hand instead of IvyMike' diversion away from it...Putnam County NY is now refusing FOIA requests on gun permit holders.

For EXACTLY the correct reasons... 

toady's picture


This asshole has ruined every thread I've looked at today.

Oh well, I'll take a look again tomorrow. Maybe it will go away.

Anusocracy's picture

All political systems are belief systems and, except for one, require force to be used against dissenters to be maintained.

That renders those political systems immoral. Panarchism, the exception, is not. It treats political beliefs like religious beliefs, where each person chooses their political system.

It is voluntaryism applied to politics.


IvyMike's picture

Panarchism isn't a political system, it's a stupid fantasy.

So somebody born into, say, the "religion" of communism, gets to leave voluntarily according to your system? Right!!! That'll work!!!

Anusocracy's picture

Thinking that government is beneficial is a stupid fantasy. Your beliefs are fantasies that exist in your head. Keep them there.

Knowing that other people are not your property is not a fantasy.

IvyMike's picture

You're confused. Rothbard sometimes said that. But then he'd admit what it really took to implement his system to reform City-Statism (Civilization):

"Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment...unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares?"

~Murray Rothbard

A brutal city-Statist through and through, but he did bullshit a lot of people into thinking he wasn't against violence. Well, all the City-Statists do that, from Stalin to Mao too.

LasVegasDave's picture

If you don’t like the "unleashing of cops to administer instant punishment," don’t enter the community. You are free to set up your own city state where there is no punishment for wrongdoing.

Rothbard's point was that in an ideal libertarian community people should be free to place whatever restrictions on associations, and access they feel necessary. And of course you are free to agree to the rules required for entry, or to object and move on.

But if the residents decide that hard labor, chain gangs and execution for armed robbery, rape or theft is what they want, you’ll have to agree to that rule of law before entering the community.


IvyMike's picture

It's funny every day when LoLbertarians parrot the "Love It [Statist violence] or Leave It" bullshit that excuses their aggression.

Why don't you just leave yourself, if you don't like this community's taxes and gummit and brutality?

Go on, GIT. It's YOUR idea. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.