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.'s picture

You're confused. Rothbard simply suggested that if the state is going to force itself on individuals then it should provide the security and other services it promises.



Hence the importance, for libertarians or for minimal government conservatives, of having a one-two punch in their armor: not simply of spreading correct ideas, but also of exposing the corrupt ruling elites and how they benefit from the existing system, more specifically how they are ripping us off. Ripping the mask off elites is "negative campaigning" at its finest and most fundamental.


This two-pronged strategy is (a) to build up a cadre of our own libertarians, minimal-government opinion-moulders, based on correct ideas; and (b) to tap the masses directly, to short-circuit the dominant media and intellectual elites, to rouse the masses of people against the elites that are looting them, and confusing them, and oppressing them, both socially and economically. But this strategy must fuse the abstract and the concrete; it must not simply attack elites in the abstract, but must focus specifically on the existing statist system, on those who right now constitute the ruling classes.


Just another case where the <sarc> tags are missing and some people can't figure it out.


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.

But thanks for letting us all know you're a True Believer.'s picture

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

IvyMike's picture

I addressed them.

You think you can cover-up Rothbardian brutal and openly admitted City-Statist violence with other quotes.

Leninists pull the same bullshit as you.

Anglo Hondo's picture

That's it, Ivy Mike has turned this site into crap this pm.

I'm off. And will be every time this moron appears.  Goodbye.


akak's picture

And this is EXACTLY why this IvyMike troll, like every other real troll, must be banned.  It can only take one committed such person to utterly destroy a meaningful online forum.  I have seen exactly that happen more than once, and it is a senseless and needless tragedy.

Jendrzejczyk's picture

This may be the only time I disagree with you Ak, He's a well trained troll, let's beat him fair and square.

IvyMike's picture

In the "marketplace of ideas," you can't compete?

Bye, whiner.

akak's picture

In the marketplace of ideas, you are peddling lead-coated Chinese-made chewtoys for toddlers.'s picture

At least he was polite enough to say goodbye before he departed on an unexpected holiday.

GMadScientist's picture

Egalitarian means equal treatment under the law...something people founding a new country after leaving one with entrenched class structure might find particularly amenable and something we've lost touch with in the age of unjailable conmen and corrupt politicians.

Freedom is one axis over which the equality may be compared, but it is a bit difficult to narrow down exactly what freedom means for each individual, as Rothbard was keen to point out.


IvyMike's picture

Scientifically, from an evolutionary biology and anthropological standpoint (which I'm using) "egalitarian" means the absence of hierarchy, i.e. NOBODY LORDING-IT-OVER OTHERS.

And only in Egalitarian Non-State societies are humans observed to be the following:

"autonomous and sovereign"

~Elman R. Service (1975), Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York: Norton.

"autonomous and sovereign"

~Christopher Boehm (1999), Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior. Harvard University Press.

That's freedom, although anthropologists rarely use the term. That's egalitarian, the absence of hierarchy, the absence of over-lords and bosses.

As Service says fully:

"Historically, people in non-state [band and tribal] societies are relatively autonomous and sovereign. They generate their own subsistence with little or no assistance from outside sources. They bow to no external political leaders. Nor are they routinely exploited by outsiders."

That's what we gave up 8000 years ago with the decent into City-Statism (Civilization.)

GMadScientist's picture

No, conflating that autonomy and egalitarian are one and the same is nonsense.

Of course the state involves a reduction in autonomy, in as much as you are (equally) as prevented from doing things that you'd likewise prevent others from doing (say, child molesting or murder), but the degree to which autonomy is sacrificed is a function of the definition of the government (another point of which the founders were keenly aware, in their decision to specify the state in terms of its limits with respect to citizens in the first place!).

Whether or not this authority of the state, in this respect, is justified is another matter.

As for 'tribal society' being that much more "autonomous and sovereign", I call bullshit; take a look at the well-defined structure in native American tribes and tell me that any given brave could peel off of the rest of the tribe at will and start faming or taking up a life of intellectual pursuit painting really deep art of Americans killing off the buffalo or something.

No more "sovereign" than Ted Kacinsky.

Take a look at any pack or troop in nature and you'll find heirarchy...this is low-brain-stem shit, man!

IvyMike's picture

Rage against the science like a damn stupid Biblical Literalist. They don't like it either.

And they make up bullshit without any evidence about as easily as you too.

And LoLbertarians dare call themselves "rational."

Funny. Every. Day.

GMadScientist's picture

"The evolutionary development of morality as an effect of dominance behavior and conflict interference" - C Boehm, 1982

"egalitarianism is in effect a hierarchy in which the weak combine forces to dominate the strong" - C Boehm

People who think they're smart, because they can reference something they obviously have not fucking read, are a hoot!

IvyMike's picture

I've got the book in my personal library. I've read it. You're a liar.

GMadScientist's picture

I'm willing to concede that it may just be an issue with your comprehension.

El Oregonian's picture

Hey Ivy, why don't you go chase parked cars or something. You are starting to make me itch...

Panafrican Funktron Robot's picture

Funny that, in the face of such an obvious call-out of the hypocrisy of the gun control "leaders", some dipshit govvy troll like IvyMike comes out of the woodwork and "earns his keep" by massively obfuscating the original text of the post.  IvyMike, have at least a small bit of self-respect and get a real job.  There is no shame in working a McJob if that's what it takes to earn an honest living.  The work ethic and practical skills you will learn will serve you much better in the days to come.  Most of all, you'll be able to sleep at night without that constant, gnawing feeling in your gut that you're a fraud, perpetuating an governmental complex that exists purely for the purposes of extracting wealth from the citizenry.  Let go of all the bullshit, IvyMike, and be the free man you were born to be.

IvyMike's picture

There's nothing more enjoyable than shooting fish in a gallery like this. It's better than a good chess game.

Funny how you'd be envious of all my free time.

Have you turned green yet, Statist numbskull?

AgAu_man's picture

Dear IvyMike,

This is too painful to watch...  No disrespect, but:

Q:  Are you a glutton for Down Arrows and a target for the wit of others, or just don't know when to quit? 

Friendly advice:  Maybe you want to come up with a new approach, a new... tack?

akak's picture

I will give a silver Eagle to the first person to give PoisonIvyMike his first 100th downarrow.

Even without the gift, I suspect that it would not be a long wait.

IvyMike's picture

Debate as a popularity contest, eh? Are you some Leftard who is glad Obama won a popularity contest?

DosZap's picture

Funny how you'd be envious of all my free time.

Well that explains it, your a 1%'er, or work for the Goobers.And likely live in the best of neighborhoods.

Move to the Hood, or just a hih crime area, to get a real taste of the dregs o0f humanity, without a moral compass, or any valus and mores.


knowless's picture

i can't believe i'm taking the bait on your retarded bullshit, i should wait a week for you to calm down, but whatever.


"Scientifically, from an evolutionary biology and anthropological standpoint (which I'm using) "egalitarian" means the absence of hierarchy, i.e. NOBODY LORDING-IT-OVER OTHERS."

anthropologically it is impossible to be without hierarchy without the individual and voluntary consent of all parties to an interaction, as biologically, some individuals are inherently better than others in verifiable and demarcatable ways..


I do agree that civilization itself promotes (and is the embodiment of) hierarchies, but attacking the most viable alternative route is useless, I understand your point, that the majority of humanity should be wiped off the face of the earth, but i would ask you to be at least slightly more pragmatic in your approach to reasoning, as genocide is generally frowned upon.

please do stick around, but try to refine your terms, you really do sound like ananonymous..

IvyMike's picture

anthropologically it is impossible to be without hierarchy

Cite? (from evolutionary biology or anthropological science)

Oh right, you have none.

El Oregonian's picture

Hey, you're right. I made all my slaves equal so in their world, THEY'RE ALL FREE!!!

IvyMike's picture

Slavery implies hierarchy (bosses).

Egalitarianism is the absence of hierarchy.

Check your premises.

El Oregonian's picture

The premise is we're all behind walls of our own making and someone is in control on the other side.

IvyMike's picture

"See the animal in his cage that you built? Are you sure what side you're on?"

~Nine Inch Nails, Right Where It Belongs


Ivy Mike. Go fuck yourself you intellectual desert on legs.

I'll take the well recorded statements and reasoning of the architects of the Constitution Of The United States over some limp dick weenie from the ninteys all fucking day long.

Hierarchy in the Forest, my ass.

The Founding Fathers statements regarding guns in the hands of citizens to balance power and corruption in government are well known public record.

They got it more right than they knew possible - nearly 300 years ago.  

You, sir, are no citizen - you, sir, are a lemming.

Go help out natural selection at a cliff near you. 

trav777's picture

actually they were happier, healthier, better-fed, and had longer average life expectancies than northern laborers.

You should stop taking what you think you know about slavery from "Django Unchained" or Roots.

GMadScientist's picture

You're right, the slavers in Django were portrayed as educated white men...what a crock!

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

"If Lincoln had just enslaved all the white folks instead of freeing the blacks it would be a perfect nation."

Actually, if you think about it long enough, you'll realize that's exactly what the result was. Can't say that he did it personally, because he was assassinated before it all happened, but take a careful look at the 14th Amendment, the 16th Amendment, and the 17th Amendment.

IvyMike's picture

Take a look at the wage slavery. No Amendment Conspiracy necessary.

booboo's picture

is that you Buckley?

Dick Buttkiss's picture

You wouldn't know Rothbard from rhubarb, IvyMike, and would be better served if you didn't go out of your way to disply your ignorance.

IvyMike's picture

Rothtardians usually hate my quoting him accurately.

shovelhead's picture

But way out of context.

Amusing to watch someone play whack a mole with their own strawmen.

Carry on.

IvyMike's picture

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

Here's your sign, True Believer:


Dick Buttkiss's picture

Rothbard (libertarianism) stands for equality before the law -- where law (governance) is limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property -- not equality of result via statist coercion. Rothbard therefore stands for hierarchy, command, and authority as these are merited by the results of voluntary cooperation.

In a free society, cream rises to the top, in other words, whereas society merely gets creamed in the statism whereby the few who run things are always "more equal" than everybody else.

Or to put it another way, IvyBoy, you're an idiot.

IvyMike's picture

In a free society, cream rises to the top...

Are you KOCHsucking Goldman's Sacks and Timmy's Turbo while you mumble that?

Rothbard therefore stands for hierarchy, command, and authority...

LoLbertards are just like Stalin and Mao and Hitler and Obama; thanks for confirming what I said.


Seig heil! The mask has been ripped off LoLbertarianism, control-freaks who want to be your BOSS. Just like any goddam pinko.

Dick Buttkiss's picture

I said "In a free society," IvyGirl, not a crony capitalist kleptocracy on the fast track to oblivion. And your inability to tell the difference between the two only reinforces why you should put the mouse down, holler upstairs for an early dinner, and get to bed by nine.

No, there aren't many jobs, and no they aren't any good ones, but that doesn't mean you can't get up early, go outside, apply for some, and pretend that you could qualify for one.

BigInJapan's picture

Lost your job recently? You sound bored and bitter.

linrom's picture

You hit the nail on the head. A redneck with a gun is to be feared as much as 'nigga on the trigga.'

MiguelitoRaton's picture

I would like to see a "Map of Unarmed People to Rob" listing all who do not own guns and then sharging $9.99 per year to remove their name.