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:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service

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:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144921,00.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:

http://www.lohud.com/article/20121223/NEWS04/312230056/The-gun-owner-next-door-What-you-don-t-know-about-the-weapons-in-your-neighborhood

http://www.lohud.com/article/20130104/OPINION/301040031/Editorial-Push-more-permit-data-free-gun-locks-too

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:

http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2013/01/02/lets-not-go-crazy-over-publishing-gun-lists/

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:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/02/us-usa-guns-newspaper-idUSBRE9010R820130102

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.
GubbermintWorker's picture

200,000? Damn, they're catching up to my hoard!

Agent P's picture

22.5 cents per round for good factory 40s...I am officially jealous.

chubbar's picture

You did read where the company was set up 5 days before the bids were put out and this new "shell" company won the bid, didn't you? It sounds like a scam, not a real contract being fulfilled.

".......The address provided to DHS and the Secretary of State is 105 S Eastern Avenue. Let’s use the NSA’s golden child, Google, to take a look what’s there:

What you see is the street corner of East Fremont Street and the intersection of North Eastern Avenue and South Eastern Avenue. On the opposite side of the street is an ARCO gas station.

Does anyone see a business capable of providing 200,000 rounds of jacketed hollow point rounds to the Federal Government? There’s not even a MailBoxes Etc to accept mail! 105 S Eastern Avenue looks like the parking lot for a bodega.

The listed principals, Grace Hodge and Larayne Whitehead, are director and president respectively. Nowhere can they be found attached to Evian Group, Inc, which is unusual, as the whole purpose of running a business is to create a steady stream of revenue. They cannot be found on LinkedIn, where people network to get more business, or even in Google as a website. Eviangroup.com is parked by GoDaddy.com for a future site, and Bravenet is hosting Eviangroup.net.

Furthermore, no property or telephone records exist for the principals. The people do not seem to exist.

In reviewing the DUNS (Dun and Bradstreet) record, when the telephone number was called, it was not a business line, but a rather unusual phrase was used, “…[P]lease download line 2”.

So the question of the moment is this: Is this a payoff to a mobster or someone of less-than-honest intent? Or is this graft for Harry Reid, the incumbent Senator for Nevada? "

 

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/01/did-dhs-just-award-ammunition-contract.html

LFMayor's picture

This is good work man.  There's also the added bonus aside from laundering the payouts that would serve to "warn" those inbred flyover militia types.  I mean come on ya'll, if they have that much ammo there's no way we could win with just our squirrel guns.

Problem is, they aint all the Huttaree Trailer Park Defense League type.  Here be Monsters.

Osmium's picture

God created man.  Samuel Colt made them equal.

Au_Ag_CuPbCu's picture

Precious metals bitchez, gotta love em!

AgAu_man's picture

Au_Ag_CuPbCu, do you like to load up extra on copper?  :-)  If you mean Pb partially encased by Brass, then you must mean Pb+CuZn.  No?

But who am I to argue with your PM sentiment?  :-)

midtowng's picture

Hiring armed guards to protect yourself from armed enemies in a land filled with guns is NOT hypocrisy. Sorry.

Also, quoting Brietbart is not a reliable source of anything (especially since the guy admitted that he has no problem with lying).

ebworthen's picture

You mean to say a propaganda outlet espousing that no guns = less violence hiring gaurds with guns is not hypocrisy?

midtowng's picture

That's exactly what I'm saying when you are living in a land filled with guns.

pazmaker's picture

I fail to follow your logic, or rather it is not existent.

 

bloostar's picture

I gather from this that you mean the previous poster is simply talking boll0cks? +1 :-)

XitSam's picture

That is exactly the point. Gun controlers are using emotion, not logic. DiFi has been working on her bill for a year she said. So she waited for a trajedy to promote gun control. So she could have prevented the shooting but didn't. The blood is on her hands.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Got a few Libtard Douchebags on parade here today!

Welcome libtard douchebag fucksticks! DailyKosTard getting a little stale lately? HuffPuff getting a little boring? Bring your 'tardness here, we need some libtards to mock and laugh at!

midtowng's picture

Then let me explain it to you in terms you can understand:

Let's say you support peace on Earth, brotherly love and all that good stuff.

Then someone comes up and punches you in the nose and prepares to beat you to death. By your logic above, if you do anything to defend yourself from death, by say, striking him back, you are a hypocrite.

  That's why your logic is rediculous. Someone CAN defend themselves from a mortal threat and still honestly believe in the cause of non-violence/defending their lives, etc.

  A person doesn't have to be as pure as Jesus to believe in justice, peace, honesty, etc. and not be a hypocrite.

  So hating gun violence and working to end it doesn't mean you can't hire people with guns to defend yourself from people with guns is hypocritical (when no other option exists other than not defending yourself).

  But then I am talking in something other than absolutes, so this will probably get flamed or ignored.

Shell Game's picture

So, you think armed, anti-gun Overlords would disarm themselves once they disarmed the populace?

 

TROLOLOLOLOLOL!

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Don't look for logic in the libtard brain, they are so busy worshipping their satanic idols, it scrambles their brains, don't you know! MENTALLY AND MORALLY DISEASED!

Shell Game's picture

I thought perhaps he might arm himself with logic on a blog full of logic..  ;^)

Quinvarius's picture

No.  Actually you are merely exhibiting hypocrisy.  But you know how stupid you sound.  So there is no point going any deeper into it.

ebworthen's picture

So their actions support the Second Amendment for their benefit while their words deny it for the Populace; sounds hypocritical to me.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

That's exactly what I'm saying when you are living in a land filled with guns.

 

So is the solution is total civilian disarmament or total disarmament period?

GubbermintWorker's picture

No, the solution is total civilian armament.

Rubbish's picture

Guns to the left of me, guns to the right of me. Handloads everywhere. Come on over bad guys. We will see how tough you are with a marksman shooting back.

LFMayor's picture

The real bitch-kitty of your solution is actually doing it.  That's where The Mighty Socialists always fall short.  When it's time to actually - do - things- like- you know - work.  Especially if there's no one else to co-opt to do it for them.

But I tell you what, I'll dust off a classic.  We'll go All Chips In.  One Hand Played.   I'll see your "solution" and raise you a Final Solution.  Know that one?

You want to fucking push it?  Fine.

I want this shit to get Ended.  I do not want my children to have to deal with progs.  I want my grandchildren to read about progs as a simple cautionary tale, an all but forgotten folk legend, well on the way to mythos.  I hope to see progs contribute to global warming and carbon emissions.  I dearly want to do this, do it once and do it with finality.

Now turn me loose.  Please.

phoolish's picture

The "Newspaper" cannot hire armed guards to "protect itself" because it's not alive so can't be effected by a gun at all.

 

Opps, this is the US, where corporations are people too.

 

dwdollar's picture

"Hiring armed guards to protect yourself from armed enemies in a land filled with guns is NOT hypocrisy. Sorry."

There's no true gun free zone/land. There's only places where it's legal for the plebes to own/carry them and places where it's not.

El Oregonian's picture

No, but bitching about others wanting to defend themselves all the while packing yourself is...

bank guy in Brussels's picture

Andrew Breitbart was found 'suddenly dead' early in 2012 at age 43 ... maybe murdered

Whatever Breitbart's views, Breitbart media now is not him, like Apple is not Steve Jobs anymore

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

?? "Maybe" murdered?

Of course he was. All they had to do was pay off one coroner, and one assassin. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

xtop23's picture

You forgot the /sarc tag I'm sure. Otherwise, I must tell you that is one of the most mind-numbingly idiotic statements I've read on ZH.

.... and there has been some real whoppers.

Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

"Hiring armed guards to protect yourself from armed enemies in a land filled with guns is NOT hypocrisy. Sorry."

The hell its not u moron.  Don't forget about fat assed Rosie O'Donnell.  Shes another one who rants about her hate for guns, but lives in a gated community protected by......GUNS!!

Also, the first amendment will fall right after the 2nd amendment falls, and

Shotguns and handguns are to protect yourself from criminals.  Assault weapons are there to protect us from totalitarian government.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

Assault weapons are there to protect us from totalitarian government.

 

I think you mean anti-assault weapons  -- those that are kept in order to prevent assault.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

The handgun defends your person.

The shotgun defends your home.

The rifle defends your freedom.

That's EXACTLY why they are trying desperately to demonize semi-automatic rifles, and get them out of our hands. They make a lot of noise about handguns, but its the rifles they really want.

Oliver Klozoff's picture

Comment of the year! Decade! All time comment award winner!

Incredibly there are people who cannot see the basic truth in this statement.

Even more incredible is how this one country can produce people with such diametrically opposed views.

Somehow, I was led to believe that FREEDOM, the ability, the right, the RESPONSIBILITY to choose, would automatically result in a sane society. One whose judgement was not only impeccable and unassailable but arrived at en masse.

Where did I err in my belief?

 

 

DosZap's picture

http://capwiz.com/gunowners/mailapp/

 

Go here and sign up,EX Hero(now treasonous, and poison) McCain turning on US yet again,TEAMING up w/ the worm Reid,trying to Alter Senate Voting procedures.........

This MUST BE stopped.

Or we are in a heap of shit.

POST this on every site you know, we need as many people as possible sending their Senators this PLEA!!!!!!!!!!!!

alangreedspank's picture

Nobody is saying that either. It's advocating against guns while doing what you described where the hypocrisy arises.

DosZap's picture

Hiring armed guards to protect yourself from armed enemies in a land filled with guns is NOT hypocrisy. Sorry

OH YES it is!, and here's why.

These folks that are CCP holders have been (if like most states) fingerprinted(FBI), trained with a minimum of 40 hrs classtime, and range time separately, and a background check done with their local neighbors contacted,for references.

These people are the Bedrock of a society that Observes the law.

(otherwise they would just carry, and break the law).

Like the author said, all they have done is targeted the NON holders to attack, and probably more daytime break ins by Druggies/Bangers, and now all,in BOTH  will have an extra danger to and for their families because of these idiots.

CCP holders are 98% of the best citizens in their resective areas, the CRIME stats of CCP holders proves it.

Why did they not put out the FACTS Latest from FBI, that from 2005-2011,Hammers killed more people in the USA than Rifles?.

If LE doesn't think it's dangerous, why should THEY?.

Papasmurf's picture

A Christian Scientist with appendicitis soon discards false beliefs.

Taint Boil's picture

 

 

 

I bet I could freeze watermelons then catapult them at people and do a lot of damage – what then, outlaw watermelons?

 

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

 

  GUARD:  (Fetchez la vache.)
      wha?
  GUARD:  (Fetchez la vache!)
      [moo]
  ARTHUR:  If you do not agree to my commands, then I shall--
      [twong]
      [mooooooo]
      Jesus Christ!

SilverIsKing's picture

A great way to reduce rape in our country would be to castrate all men.  We are all threats to women but if we got our dicks chopped off, there would definitely be fewer rapes in our country.  Maybe Bloomberg would support this too.

Fred Hayek's picture

He's the beta tester for your idea.

quasimodo's picture

How to you castrate a guy with a vagina again?

AgAu_man's picture

I know of some new Congress Women who would and do support this: E.g. the Lesbians and the now Trans-Gender Man/Woman/It would.  Others would vote in sympathy to them and as PC solidarity.  Oh, how effeminate a nation we have/will become!

Oliver Klozoff's picture

Excepting the gays of course. They NEED their ejaculations. And they pose no threat to women, excepting competition.

 

Now that I've pondered your no longer ridiculous idea a few minutes, why not try it out in the prison system?

Get convicted for a violent crime? Off they go!

Just imagine how many prison guards tpb can lay off. Win, win.