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.
gckings19's picture

my hs has JROTC.....and a rifle range.   Lots of military leaders and heroes graduated from there.  No gun violence though.  There is no perfect world but taking away the rights of citizens and disregarding the constitution is not somewhere i want to go.  better to lock up all the nuts than take away the guns.

djsmps's picture

We didn't have JROTC at our school (even though half the kids were from Air Force families). We had archery.

viahj's picture

we had archery in high school in the late '80's

TPTB_r_TBTF's picture



And we actually gained knowledge in school.

Are you sure?  I used to think that I had gained "knowledge in school", but then after quite a while, I realized,

I had been merely indoctrinated at school.


djsmps's picture

It makes me laugh to see all the negs.  I'm not for gun control, but apparently if anyone suggests a world could have existed without all the endemic violence of today is a threat to you. We walked or rode a bicycle to school. Now, parents take their kids because they're afraid for their safety. I'm glad I got to through school in a much more benign atmosphere.

DosZap's picture

I'm glad I got to through school in a much more benign atmosphere.

With just as many guns also.(But we had real law enforcement, and neighbors, and no war on drugs,(just a way to build up agencies).

Same here, when  I was 12 I could not buy a WW II rifle because I did not have the $28.00,if I had the money I could have purchased it,w/out any parental taking it home?, that would likely have ended my Prize!.......LOL

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

If you're not for gun control, then stop spouting their propaganda. Get a grip on yourself. Are your thoughts your own? Examine everything you think you know very carefully.

I'm not ashamed to say that up until 11 years ago, I did not have a single well-thought-out opinion of my own, and my command of the facts of reality was almost nonexistent, I relied on my education to guide me (which I now know was mostly lies) and I let the libtard media do all my thinking for me. But thanks to the grace of God, I managed to deprogram myself in the 2001-2002 timeframe.

The only shame is in NOT fixing the problem.

Vooter's picture

"But thanks to the grace of God, I managed to deprogram myself in the 2001-2002 timeframe." could have fooled me...

Oliver Klozoff's picture

As though belief in God disqualifies anyone from seroius discourse. You hold your pre-judice before you.

jonan's picture

you and i both and i both

awake since 08 and loving it!

djsmps's picture

Can you tell me exactly what propaganda I have been spouting?

Shell Game's picture

+1000 for a great testimony. In the times we find ourselves there is nothing more inspiring than the stories of those who wake up, shed ignorance and walk away from the crowd.

AgAu_man'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."

Where's that?  Singapore?  China?  Russia? Some destitute, crime-ridden American inner city?

Well, the Swiss had better make all their males hand in their semi and full-automatic weapons that they were allowed to take home after their mandatory military training.  I mean, given all the shootings and mass-shootings going on in Switzerland.  ;-/


Little John's picture

“I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo. "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

Little John's picture

I've decided.  They have to come and take them.  I won't make that easy for them. They will have to pay.

Rubbish's picture

There will always be guns in America and anyone who has trained with a bolt action 400-600 yards with irons is much more scary to me than any AR 15/AK 47

AgAu_man's picture

Bite your tounge!  Next thing you'll know, they'll be forcing shorter barrels or looser ID's (Inner Diameters) to 'detune' them.

TSA gropee's picture

Perhaps it's the way they prefer it. Slaughter a few gun owners and they figure many will cave in.
To speak of Molon Labe is one thing. To act on it, quite another. Then again, if some are slaughtered and become martyrs for the cause of feedom, it may just be the catalyst needed. Just being realistic and not sure what'I'd do when the time comes...

Little John's picture

I've cosidered the matter at length. I was born free, haved lived free, and if it must be so I will die free.  Freedom is worth it. Life as a slave is not worth living. I mean what I say.  They may kill me but I will make that a bloody proposition for them as well.  Let it come.

orangegeek's picture

It's not about anti-gun.


It's about taking away guns from the masses so government and the media that carries their water for them are the only ones who are armed.

Mr. Hudson's picture


Senators Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer are both rabid Zionists. Why do the Zionists want to disarm Americans, while Israeli citizens walk around in public with fully automatic weapons?

e_goldstein's picture

Because it is all about to fall apart and they know they are complicit in America's demise.


AgAu_man's picture

Uh, lemme guess:  Forewarned if forearmed?

Vooter's picture

"After the Sandy Hook attacks, the NRA responded with the suggested measure of establishing armed security guards at public schools...I personally agree with the idea, though I believe [that] allowing teachers to legally carry on school grounds would be a much more effective deterrent..."

Just curious--how does having armed guards or teachers in schools stop massacres from happening in theaters, or casinos, or bowling alleys, or basketball arenas, or any other public spaces? Why don't you just come out and say that you believe that EVERYONE in the United States should carry a firearm at all times, because as far as I can see, that's the only possible way that people like you--people who believe that imminent danger lurks around every corner--could ever feel totally safe. And once the entire country was armed and massacres continued to happen--because of course they would--what would your solution be then? Arm every citizen with two guns? Up the required caliber? The absurdity never ends, and deep down, you know it...

Havok's picture

So whats your answer then?

TheDarkKnight's picture

Drones (I'm pretty sure im not the first to think of it too... just look at what homeland security is doing)


--and I don't want drones, but you can be damned sure big brother would rather have drones flying around ready to shoot the next mass murderer rather than every civilian armed and ready

FeralSerf's picture

The answer is to get to find out who the real culprits are and subject them to justice.  The MSM declared culprits are obviously, to any reasonably awake person, not the real culprits.  They are patsies.  This includes, not just Aurora and Sandy Hook, but also 9/11 and Oklahoma City among many others.  

Elements inside Big Brother are the real culprits and they escape prosecution because they own the MSM, the writing of the laws, law enforcement, the military, and the courts.  Because of this, there likely is no answer, only continued and increasing enslavement.


Killtruck's picture

Let me just thumb through the stats here and find how many massacres happened at NRA conventions, shooting ranges, gun shows, and military live-fire exercises.


So I guess your argument is based on emotion, and therefore pretty shitty. 

Freddie's picture


Gun stores and gun shows are about the last place in the world you want to start some shit.  Generally very good folks at both places too.  The prices at shows can be a bit high and the guys who are "really" into knives kind of creep me out.

drink or die's picture

How about....


Everyone is responsible for their own safety, and keeps their nose out of everyone elses business.  Passing stupid laws (whether it's arming or disarming people) have no effect, because criminals ignore laws. The mindset you are in is that things can be fixed with laws, which is childish.


How about isntead of making all schools "gun free zones" (aka mass-murder zones), you give teachers the ability to exercise their right of being able to carry a firearm and defend themselves.

fuu's picture

"Why don't you just come out and say that you believe that EVERYONE in the United States should carry a firearm at all times, because as far as I can see, that's the only possible way that people like you--people who believe that imminent danger lurks around every corner--could ever feel totally safe."

Seems to me the ones trying to ban guns are the scared ones. 99.9967% of guns in America do not kill people. Since 2004 almost as many people have been killed by assault weapons as were killed by cops in 2011.

"The absurdity never ends, and deep down, you know it"


Tirpitz's picture

"99.9967% of guns in America do not kill people."

But guns don't kill people. Must be the ammunition then, doing that dirty job.

Come to think of it, the box of 30-06 over in the corner looks rather harmless, too.

fuu's picture

Ok ok ok 99.9967% of firearms in America have not been used to kill anyone.

zerotohero's picture

From the Daily Reckoning - says it all:


“When they come for my gun, they will have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands,” is a common refrain I often hear from the Neo-Cons when there is a threat, credible or otherwise, that the US government is going to take their firearms.

And, when I hear this crazy talk, I agree with them openly. “You are right. They will pry your gun from your cold dead hands,” which I often follow with the question, “And where will that leave you except face down in a pool of your own blood [in] the middle of the street, just another dead fool resisting the State?”

This is not a question they are comfortable with, if only because the intent of their saber-rattling was to imply they would fight to keep their weapons, and win.

Nice fantasy. It’s not happening.

If the federal government decides to disarm the public, and when the increasingly-militarized rolls down your street after a not-so-subtle request that you kindly turn over your firearms and ammunition “for the common good,” it will be nothing less than suicide by cop to do anything other than what you are told.

The militarization of US police forces is ongoing and escalating. Many cities and towns now own tanks, armed personnel carriers, even attack helicopters, and almost all are outfitted with military weapons not available to the general public.

And, it is not just your hometown cops who are getting new boy-toys. The military itself is buying up weaponry not just for use in the current or next scheduled war, but to deal with the likes of you, citizens who don’t seem to understand that the Bill of Rights has been overruled, and that specifically includes, but is not limited to, the right to protest and engage in civil disobedience.

Also ignored (as if it didn’t even exist) is the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which generally bars the military from law enforcement activities within the United States.

According to Public Intelligence:

“…for the last two years, the President’s Budget Submissions for the Department of Defense have included purchases of a significant amount of combat equipment, including armored vehicles, helicopters and even artillery, under an obscure section of the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the purposes of ‘homeland defense missions, domestic emergency responses, and providing military support to civil authorities.’ Items purchased under the section include combat vehicles, tanks, helicopters, artillery, mortar systems, missiles, small arms and communications equipment. Justifications for the budget items indicate that many of the purchases are part of routine resupply and maintenance, yet in each case the procurement is cited as being ‘necessary for use by the active and reserve components of the Armed Forces for homeland defense missions, domestic emergency responses, and providing military support to civil authorities’ under section 1815 of the FY 2008 NDAA.”

And, they are not just arming cops and weekend warriors for domestic purposes. Active duty Marines are now being trained for law enforcement operations all over the world (of which the US remains a part) specifically to deal with civil uprisings, and the US government knows that civil uprisings are coming to a town near you just as soon as the fantasy of a healing economy is shattered, the US dollar fails, and unemployment goes to 30%+ in real numbers.

And, to you tough-talking Neo-Cons with your AR-15 rifles and a few thousand rounds of ammo, here is the reality: they will take your guns, and no, all your Second Amendment bluster aside, you are not going to do anything about it. You are not going to take on a platoon of Marines with state-of-the-art automatic weapons and the best body armor you cannot buy protected by armed personnel carriers and attack helicopters unless you choose to die that day — for nothing. You will either be in the country or out, and if you are in, you will stay in and you will comply.

That is your choice… for the moment.

Read more: When They Come For Your Guns, You Will Turn Them Over
Gadocat99's picture

About 5% of the Colonists opposed British rule with firearms -- doesn't take many.

On a second note, my pencil causes misspelled words. 

FeralSerf's picture

The Colonists' arms were not that much different from the British Army's arms.  That is no longer the case by a huge margin.

Bad Attitude's picture

Have you kept up on what is happening in Afghanistan lately? Do you honestly believe US military personnel would attack their own countrymen?

FeralSerf's picture

They've done it before and they'll do it again.  Remember Lincoln's war?  There are other examples.

Killtruck's picture

"You are not going to take on a platoon of Marines with state-of-the-art automatic weapons and the best body armor you cannot buy protected by armed personnel carriers and attack helicopters..."

That's interesting. Should someone have told the Taliban? The Iraqi insurgents? The VietCong/Vietminh?

Apparently the memo isn't getting through to them, sir.

aerojet's picture

You don't take them on head to head, you attack their supply chain and their morale and their families.

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot's picture

Right. Most people won't be sitting on their front porches with their shirts off and a double barrel shotgun across their laps. That's ont how this is going to go down.

Jendrzejczyk's picture

Better re-thunk my stragedy, huh?

zerotohero's picture

come come now you naive one - please don't try and compare yourself to any members of said Taliban or other groups that you mentioned. a lazy fat amerikan is no cradle born fanatical highly trained and insanely dedicated person such as taliban or vietcong - i mean come on now