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.
bank guy in Brussels's picture

Many thousands of people die each year falling in bathtubs

Mayor Bloomberg will perhaps lead the charge on bathtub-control

And in crazy Great Britain - which confiscated all handguns in the late 1990s, only to see violent gun crimes double ... they have a new theme

'Knife control'

They even have professional chefs speaking out, that various larger kitchen knives 'like assualt rifles', are 'not needed' ...

Karl Denninger covered this ... his link

AgAu_man's picture

Good one, BGIB!   Sorry if I 'chided' you a bit some days ago (about the Belgians).  No hard feelings on my part.  None on yours, I hope.

If we extrapolate your idea to its logical conclusion, we would (a) do a PARETO of causes of death and (b) start a Petition to the White House (WH), to address causes and preventions of death in a rational manner, using 'SMART' goals.  I think 25k votes are needed.

"Pareto' guy, "Mr Spock", would that be... too logical for POT-US, for DC?

BidnessMan's picture

180,000+ die in the US every year from medical mistakes.....  ban Doctors and Nurses next?


Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

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

Someday you might be lucky to throw your own shit at your keepers.  Like a monkey in a cage.

viahj's picture

no, outlaw catapults and heavily tax watermelons

TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

No, you would ban the catapult.  Catapults already [seem to] fall under any laws restricting slingshots, bows and the like.

El Oregonian's picture

No, seeds. This is for future crime, you know, like the movie.

salvadordaly's picture

or catapults, or people using the catapult, or the farmer that grew the watermelon, see where we are headed?

Vooter's picture

Could you kill 27 people in half an hour or so with your frozen watermelons?

AgAu_man's picture

Cool (pun intended) as this would be, I rather suspect that certain 'select' Americans who are afraid of too many 'non-select' Americans with ARs & high capacity magazines, are not afraid of your cool cannon.  No matter how many were around.  For one thing, they'd have to get past the Monsanto lobby, and their GMO melons.  ;-)

buzzsaw99's picture

gun control = being able to hit where you aim

e_goldstein's picture

long scoped bolt action rifles. 

The Heart's picture

Gun control is a steady hand.

Bad Attitude's picture

Gun control isn't about guns. It's about control.

gmak's picture

I'm not sure, but I think that if everyone was openly armed - not concealed - then society would be a much more polite environment to live within.

Vooter's picture

Until someone came up behind you and shot you in the back of the head just for the fun of it...

LFMayor's picture

You really should stop breathing and hold your breath now.  In case you were to aspirate a cold germ and fall ill.

TPTB_r_TBTF's picture

That wonT work.  Your lungs are already full of germs.

IridiumRebel's picture

and his breathe has halatosis and hot air....yeah....and shit too.


Cthonic's picture

 "Until someone came up behind you and shot you in the back of the head just for the fun of it..."

What's to stop anyone from doing that now?  Or using a zip gun, crossbow, claw hammer, billiard ball, or a piece of angle iron in a similar blindsiding? Your 'argument', it hails from somewhere beyond retarded.  Laws don't protect anyone from sneak attacks, choosing to respectfully associate with sane people who know right from wrong minimizes the danger of falling prey to a sneak attack.  Even more so if said people are willing  and able to shoot sneak attacking instigators/ideologues/idiots on sight.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

You are using logic in an attempt to communicate with a libtard. It's a pointless exercise, because the logical parts of their brains don't work.

The Libtard is mentally, morally, and emotionally diseased. NEVER FORGET that. It's best to either ignore them or ridicule them. Keep an eye on them though, because they are shifty and cowardly. They usually run in packs because they are weak and spineless when separated from their herd. Remember that they are only as smart as the stupidest one among them, and that's pretty fucking stupid. But despite their vanishingly small collective IQ, in numbers they are dangerous, like a herd of wild buffaloes is dangerous...

Vooter's picture

LOL...the saddest part is, I have no doubt that you believe every word of the laughably retarded shit that comes out of your mouth. Why not, right? It's not like there's anyone in the trailer park to tell you any differently. I think it's time you had another drink and a couple more hours of TV, there, Mr. Monkey....

Vooter's picture

"What's to stop anyone from doing that now?  Or using a zip gun, crossbow, claw hammer, billiard ball, or a piece of angle iron in a similar blindsiding?" why carry a gun?

bank guy in Brussels's picture

At shooting ranges and shooting clubs ... in Belgium, and in America and Canada as well as I have briefly visited

Everyone seems extremely nice!


Yes we do actually have lots of private civilian guns in Europe. ...

In our little Belgium: 2 million civilian privately owned handguns, shotguns, rifles

France: 19 million civilian privately owned handguns, shotguns, rifles ... And so on.

We do not carry them around, or have as high gun ownership rates as in the US, but there are probably 100 million plus private guns in Continental Europe (not Britain, they are gun-grabbing crazy).

Facts of gun ownership and policies in countries around the world:

FeralSerf's picture

Haven't many of the guns that Europeans own been restricted to .22 calibre rim fire for some time now?  It seems to me that was the case in Belgium in 1983 unless one could prove to the "Authorities" than a more lethal one was necessary for his security.

Freddie's picture

The whole thing is absurd because Belgium makes some very fine guns from FN FAL. 

FeralSerf's picture

Those fine Belgian guns are only made for "authorized" owners and users or for export.

I considered buying one when I was there in 1983.  It was legal for me to do so since I was not a Belgian citizen or resident.  Even though the firearm was legal to own in the U.S., importation of it by me was not allowed so I didn't buy one.  As an aside, a Belgian friend that was the local sales manager in the Brussels Mercedes dealership wanted me to buy one for him since he was limited to rim fire weapons.  He often carried large sums of cash because cars were customarily bought that way in Belgium in the 1980s.  (I bought two that way.)  I didn't buy one for him because I was afraid of the consequences.

Some day Americans will need to be "authorized" and "licensed" in order to possess firearms.  TPTB will demand it.


Winston Churchill's picture

Just looking at the UK regs from your link.

Used to have a UK gun license long ago.Even back then the coppers wanted

an interview,references,gun safe and a shooting club membership.

SLR and semi auto are prohibited,otherwise does not appear too difficult to

get a license for pistols,bolt action long guns.

I don't approve of the new regs but back in the day I had a licensed Bren,Fn SLR,

and shotguns.Would not let me keep my service Sterling SMG though.

I know where these are still readily available in the UK.Illegal,but therefor the taking.

AgAu_man's picture

Yes, I found the same thing at the Concealed Weapons Class last night.  Really nice, polite people, with a sense of humour too.

Except for one young guy who worries me:  All Camo-gear, no smiles or chuckles with the rest of the group.  Affective Dissonance worries me.  Especially in gun classes.  If I were the instructor -- a decorated sergeant who did 2 years in Iraq -- I'd make mental notes on the 2% of the guys who come across as psychos-in-training, and give you the 'heebie jeebies' at a visceral level. 

The rest of the 98% -- that's about to be lawfully 'ram-rodded', ouch! -- is perfectly fine with almost any weapon, given enough training.

But again, let's not confuse Motive with Pretext, when it comes to any kind of "Gun Legislation" from Obama et al.

Lmo Mutton's picture

Case made, case closed.

Conax's picture

A gun free zone around our leaders makes a lot of sense. After all, one of those guards might snap at any moment and go on a wild rampage through the wh or capitol building if they let them carry those deadly weapons.  There should be gun free zones everywhere the leadership goes, out to 500 yards.

Tirpitz's picture

"A gun free zone around our leaders..."

Seems you demand a bit much. Adding a gun free zone to an already brain free one...

Id fight Gandhi's picture

Anyone see that celebrity psa video spliced with all the violent movies they did?

q99x2's picture

If the gun control freaks are afraid for themselves and their families they should leave the country now while they still have a chance. When the NWO banksters attack they won't be able to get out.

Vooter's picture

I hate to break it to you, but the gun-control freaks AREN'T THE ONES CARRYING GUNS. So who's afraid for themselves and their families?

djsmps's picture

I'm glad I grew up in a time when people didn't have guns in schools. And we actually gained knowledge in school.

unrulian's picture

Really...when was that?  My uncles took their shotguns to school and put them in their lockers so they could go hunting after school with their friends....not so long ago.

GCT's picture

dj I went to high school in the 60's and also hunted.  I saw many of my teachers on the range and some did indeed carry concealed.  The only difference is it was no biggie and most folks did not care about it like we do today.  We did not have gun free target rich environments back then either.

I knew several CCing and oh the principle carried.  Most students did not hunt or shoot on the range like my family did.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Yes! We have an IGNORANT DUMB FUCK here!

In most rural parts of America, up until the 70s, kids routinely brought their rifles to school so they could go hunting after class, or shoot at the school shooting range (many high schools had shooting ranges in the basement for .22 target shooting).

Another mentally, morally, and emotionally diseased Libtard chimes in!

Vooter's picture

Let me guess--they also walked to school barefoot in the snow, right?

akak's picture

Well, sometimes they got free rides in the Choomwagon.

buzzsaw99's picture

my mother took a marksmanship class in high school

caimen garou's picture

we had marksmanship class of '78