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.
Rubbish's picture

One guy with a .223 almost shut down the beltway near DC back in 2002. Just think what 20 with .30-06 or .308's could do, yeah just 20. The revolution wins and they know it. It can't come to that or they lose everything they cheated so hard for.

e_goldstein's picture

The first reason I stopped reading the DR is because they axed the Mogambo.

Now I have a second. No one should give too much credit to what this coward has to say. 



Way to go Zero to hero - propasganda at it's finest.

And yet a bunch of farmers armed with dick all kept the Russians and the Americans on the ropes for the last thirty years.

THIS, despite all their weaponry, superior troop numbers and technology, in an armed conflict in another country with no nasty rules or media relative to the rule of law in the good ole USA. 

Go fuck yourself. All you are good for. 

zerotohero's picture

my image of you is that of the crazy guy in Tremors - down in his bunker looking at all those guns grinning like a batshit crazy - makes me laugh

BidnessMan's picture

Do the math.  The military is like fractional reserve banking. Will never happen.

The entire US Marine Corps 200,000 active duty.  About half are outside the US.  Even with a "Tooth to Tail" ratio of 40%, there are at most 40,000 combat Marines in the US.  A platoon is about 40 marines.  So there are about 1,000 Marine combat platoons - total - in all of the US.  Make the math easy - 1,000 combat platoons / 50 states = 20 platoons PER STATE.  So how long will it take 20 platoons to go assault every house in the state with a registered gun?  Planning and execution for a combat assault takes 1 day.  Another day for rest and resupply.  What support is a Marine platoon going to get from local civilians who know the platoon is assaulting and killing their friends and neighbors?  But hey -- be generous and assume each platoon could do 200 assaults on US civilians per year.  So 20 platoons x 200 houses = 4,000 houses PER YEAR per state. There are 300M+ guns in the US.  6M guns per state on average.  6M guns / 4,000 houses per year = 3,000 years.  Good luck with that, knucklehead. 

And none of the 40 marines in the platoon are Oath Keepers?  And none of the Marines in the platoon are worried about some other Marine platoon assaulting their friends and neighbors back in their home states?  And the average Marine is going to assault a house of a fellow US citizen every other day -- forever?  In a vacuum you might have a point.  But the numbers just don't work.  Not something that anyone is going to have to worry about it.  if some political fool tries to actually do it, it will break down in a week or two at most.  Even with better equipment, some Marines in the platoon are going to be wounded or killed.  Ambushed by the neighbors, lucky shot, friendly fire accidents, etc.  See Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan - platoons don't come out scratch free from every assault forever.  Dumb luck from some amateur eventually takes its toll.  Who is going to replace the wounded and dead Marines in the platoon?  What is the average US Marine E5 going to think when he or she realizes that some dumbass civilian clerk gave them the wrong street address for an assault, and they just murdered a bunch of innocent fellow citizens with not a gun in sight?  How many more assaults is that platoon going to undertake?  Not many. 

So while it sounds good, 40,000 combat Marines - many of whom are not going to like assaulting fellow US citizens - are not going to take on 10%+ of the US population - 30M people -- that are reasonably well armed.  At some point real fast, the Marine Corps leadership is not going to play along with some manaical politician demanding they slaughter US citizens in huge numbers because they have guns as allowed by the US Constitution.  Lots of ways to go slow.  

You must be some politician who naively assumes the Marines will wholesale slaughter fellow US citizens any time you demand it.  The Marines I know are not going to do it.  Neither are the other service branches, or the local police.  What an egotistical putz you are to think they will.  They will not come for our guns.  You live in your own little naive dream world.    


Vooter's picture

"Seems to me the ones trying to ban guns are the scared ones."

A) I'm not trying to ban guns--I just don't feel threatened enough by the world around me to carry one. And b) since I don't feel the need to carry a gun, WHO'S THE SCARED ONE? Me, or the person who's fearful enough that they feel they have to carry one?

fuu's picture

That's some serious dishonesty you have going on there.

Vooter's picture

Yeah? Which part? And how do you know? I'm waiting...

fuu's picture

Your attempt to broad brush all gun owners as fearful is dishonest and you know it. Deep down.

DosZap's picture

A) I'm not trying to ban guns--I just don't feel threatened enough by the world around me to carry one. And b) since I don't feel the need to carry a gun, WHO'S THE SCARED ONE? Me, or the person who's fearful enough that they feel they have to carry one


You need a edumUacasHun dude.

People do not carry for , or from fear,it's called being prepared,and refusing to be a victim.


Beam Me Up Scotty's picture

"could ever feel totally safe."

No such thing as totally safe.  Life is full of risks.  People like you just don't like that.  How many people die in the Middle East to bombs?  Take away all the guns.  People will still die.

Vooter's picture

"Life is full of risks. People like you just don't like that."

I DON'T CARRY A GUN. So who's more afraid of risks, me or someone carrying a gun?

gckings19's picture

Vooter is a doooosshhhhe and knows it.

Toolshed's picture

You are obviously a complete fool. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. How many murders have been committed with baseball bats? Better ban baseball bats. What about bladed weapons? Surely many, many more violent acts have been committed with knives and swords during man's time on this planet than guns. What citizen's kitchen is not equipped with these extremely dangerous weapons? Oh the horror!!! We REALLY need to pass some strict knife control laws obviously. China does not allow private gun ownership. In the past few years there have been a number of public attacks in China by knife weilding nut jobs resulting in multiple casualties. At least one at an elementary school. So, Einstein, what do you suggest we do about those awful knives and the people reckless enough to actually own one (or God forbid, more than one) of these dastardly bladed implements of death and destruction? And don't get me started on the extreme and well known dangers posed by sticks and stones. Please enlighten us with your radiant wisdom.

Vooter's picture

"How many murders have been committed with baseball bats? Better ban baseball bats."

How many times has a baseball bat been used to kill 27 people in one sitting? How many times have knives been used to kill 27 people in one sitting? On the flip side, if people are allowed to buy and own as many guns of as many calibers and capabilities as they want, why can't I own a nuclear warhead? Why can't I own a missile-armed fighter jet? After all, nuclear warheads don't kill people, people kill people...RIGHT???

Toolshed's picture

Vooter is the epitomy of the saying:

Why remain silent and allow people to wonder about your level of intellect, when you can speak and dispel all doubt.

And now we all know Vooter is not nearly as sharp as a marble.

Vooter's picture

Any chance you could just answer the question??? I didn't think so...

BidnessMan's picture

FBI reports that more people are killed every year with a hammer than a rifle.  No talk of banning hammers.

All the serious clamor for this faded away once news came out that Sidwell Friends school had 11 armed guards - not including the Secret Service.  So don't worry about it - the hypocracy was just too blatant.  Really was sad about the school kids, but that is what happens when crazy people are left to run loose. Society knows it is taking a risk, and sometimes the worst happens.

In any case, another classic case of liberals telling other people to do as I say, not as I do.'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,


Responsible adults should feel free to carry firearms in public at all times and on private property when the owner permits it. Feel better? I know I do.

Vooter's picture

"Responsible adults should feel free to carry firearms in public at all times"

I didn't say that the author thought that everyone "should feel free to carry firearms." I said that the author thought that everyone "should carry [firearms]." There's a difference. The first one says that it should be okay for everyone to carry firearms. The second one says that it should be a requirement. That's my point. I was simply pointing out that if the writer thinks that schoolchildren and/or schoolteachers and administrators should be armed to protect themselves against future massacres, then by logical extension the writer must believe that EVERYONE should be armed, everywhere and at all times, in order to protect themselves from future massacres. After all, how would armed schoolteachers protect patrons at nearby theaters, or bowling alleys, or basketball games, or concerts, right? How would armed schoolteachers protect people in the parks, and on the street, and in the malls? Get it? All I want is the author to admit that his solution to protect everyone in the world from future massacres is to arm everyone in the world. He should at least admit that...'s picture

Please provide an exact quote in which anyone has said that elementary school students should be armed.

shovelhead's picture

You forgot astroid strikes...

How can guns prevent astroid strikes?

Did a gun save Fukushima?

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

You got that part right.


GCT's picture

Vooter I will bite.  There simply is no way to protect yourself if someone is indeed intent on killing you.  I do not think this is the issue though.  Mass killing did not really being until someone thought ok we will have gun free zones now.   21 mass killings in the last 20 years and all but one happened in gun free zones.

I think the gun free zone does indeed need to be looked at.  I am for allowing a teacher that wants to coneceal carry (CC) to CC.  Deterrance goes a long way.  They carried when I was in school and probably alot of others if you were a person that loved to shoot on the range or hunt and eat what you killed.  This subject was not ever brought up because it was not a big deal to be honest. 

Vooter you made a statement to ZH allow me to make one to you please.  Why not examine a lawe that only keep law abiding citizens from portecting themselves.  Quote pop up here all the time but honestly police show up after the fact most of the time.  I happen to CC and never break the gun free law.  What the law does not do and never will do is protect the innocents.  We have laws on the books and they are broken by criminal every minute, so why allow them a place where no one can shoot back at them.  Look at the movie shooting in Colorado.  Many theatres close to the shooter but he took the only one with a gun free sign.

Honestly I do not have the answer you seek.  All I ask of you is to examine the law in its current form.  The firearm is not evil.  The person wielding it is the one committing the crime.  Should we as people allow our children no defense?  Should we not at least get rid of the law and try it as the current law is not working?  These are the questions we should be asking.  We have a right to protect ourselve and bear arms.  So you ban a semi autmatic modular firearm, it is not going to help. 

People who live in their own little world, sitting in their own little house, thinking they are swafe until someone breaks in or worse may think it is good to ban all firearms until that criminal acts upon you.  Then the world will be totally different.  I know I have been there.  I have a right to protect myself and my family.  It is ok to disagree with me, but it is time to look at the law. 


AgAu_man's picture

Actually, the "engineering solution" does not involve guns at all.  The simplest solution is:  Provide SECURE CLASSROOM DOORS.  And maybe some locally-activated and remote-control metal gates that slide or roll down, to 'compartmentalize' hallways.

No doubt we can come up with other minimalist solutions also, which require no new legislation.  E.g. Tasers (don't most women carry them already?), etc, etc.  The point is, let the 'Free' Market solve the problem, whereby school superintendants are given a smal but workable budget.  Not one of those pork-barrel excuses for votes.  Let the 'locals' sort it out! 

"Ask not what the Government can do for you..." - JFK.

Of course that would give ploticians (deliberate misspelling!) more time for real issues that need to be addressed.  ;-/


Hey, Vooter - here's some hard truth for ya.

With all due respect, your comment ignores factual evidence. " Powerful assault weapons " were not in use at sandy Hook. Hand guns were used to kill those children. The AR - as in Armalite Rifle stolen by the perpetrator - never left the trunk of the car. Media reports to the contrary initially were poorly researched, based on hearsay, innuendo, and hype. At Virginia Tech, again, hand guns were used to commit one of the most horrific crimes in recent memory. Mental health, and the dangerous unproven cocktail of drugs used to " treat " same, can be linked to a significant number of criminal acts of murder involving firearms in the last couple of decades.  The so called " gun show loophole " does not exist at most Arms Collectors gun shows. Only members can purchase firearms at the shows, and members must undergo criminal background checks to be eligible for membership. Most members are also Concealed Carry Pistol permit holders, which involves FBI background checks, finger printing, and local law enforcement agency review.  It would be interesting to see just exactly what the correlation between legal gun owners, criminal gun owners, and criminal acts looked like on paper.  In jurisdictions such as California, Maryland, Connecticut, and Illinois, the Brady Bill, Assault Weapons Ban, " gun control ", magazine capacity limits, etc., have had NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT on gun related fatalities relative to states with the most liberal attitudes regarding gun ownership. Please lobby politicians to make an attempt to solve the problems relating to the lack of significant enforcement of existing law for harsh penalties relating to the criminal use of firearms. A strong deterrent to gun abuse would go a long way towards solving the problems our society faces. " Gun free zones " are easy targets for criminals, whether they use guns, gasoline, or fertilizer mixed with fuel oil to create mayhem and destruction. Your efforts would be better served supporting legislation to eliminate gun free zones, and allow citizens who already have passed criminal background checks to conceal carry their firearms in these settings.  A police presence is not a requirement in our schools. Teachers and support staff who already possess Concealed Carry Pistol licenses would be all the deterrent ever required to eliminate the specter of another Sandy Hook. Even if no teachers actually was armed, just the repeal of gun free zones, and the ability of those who chose to conceal carry along with the media attention would serve notice to the criminal element. Schools, movie theaters, and shopping malls would no longer be soft, defenseless targets. Please act on our behalf. Legal gun owners have never been a problem. Criminals will never have a problem using any means to break the law. Make them pay a significant price for doing so, and do not allow knee jerk poorly directed legislation to pass under your watch.

Man up, you loser - become a citizen, instead of preaching slave. 

Vooter's picture

Do you people honestly think that someone who is willing to walk into an elementary school and slaughter scores of young children gives a RAT'S ASS about who's armed and who's not? Do you really think that Adam Lanza was checking around beforehand to see where the "gun-free zones" were? LOLOLOLOLOLOL...WTF is the color of the sky in your world???

GCT's picture

Vooter  they do not give a rats ass about killing.  My point is every 100% of the time no matter where when these nut cases are cornered or a concerned person points a firearm at them they either drop the weapon or shoot themselves.  I disagree with your statement they do indeed care if the school has armed people in it.  This is the problem with people like you, you would not know a fact if it hit you in the face.  Instead some children got killed let me toss my critical thinking skills out the window and call anyone here who disagrees with me an idiot.  I AM NOT GOING TO CALL YOU ONE. 

I would like an answer on my statement from you instead of name calling as it solves nothing.  Do you think we could look at the law and change it?  I think we should as it is a bad law.  Adam Lanza already knew it was a gun free zone sir.  Why would he have to check it.  He may be nuts but he was not stupid.  Answer me this Vooter why have all of these massacres happened on gun free zones in the last 20 years except one?



That's not the point. Concealed weapons permit holder putting a round into some whack bar before he commits unrestrained mayhem is the point. 

Media attention on the fact that folks are armed and dangerous rather than defenseless and helpless is the point.

Teacher with a Glock versus teacher with a piece of chalk. Who's gonna win that one ?

At least there is probable defense of the defenseless instead of guaranteed tragedy.

Why don't you work on eliminating the drug coctails pushed by Big Pharma that seems to be responsible for pushing marginal mental health sufferers over the edge of sanity instead ?

Statistically, at least you would be saving lives with you efforts instead of bleating like a sheep heading for slaughter.

By the way, sky is blue last time I looked unless it is raining, at sunrise, and at sunset. Seems like you get all the colors in nature's rainbow if you wait long enough and observe.

Sky in your neighborhood looks and smells like propagandist bullshit, troll boy. 

hyperbole2000's picture

If they had a map that showed the number of legal guns per say 16 block grid rather than by individual address as a map legend item on the real estate search map web site that would be great because i want to live in the center of the densest legal gun ownership neighbourhood.  $%&$@ with my well armed middle class voter constituted neighbourhood and see what you get.

The only problem is that  if the government went totalitarian we would be target #1 for midnight shock troop raids. All that Baghdad door to door bust down training will come in very handy.

Another problem: home invasion theives will target the least densest eighbourhoods resulting in less dense becoming more dense to protect themselves,

Another problem: when guns are the theives target they would carry out cold bloodied executions of sleeping family members to reduce risk of counter meaures from the victim(s).

Weigh the options - Bad idea.

aerojet's picture

The shock troops you mention won't feel so invulnerable when they're putting out the flames on their children's backs.  How do you think the cartels do business?

Fist full of CDOs's picture

Politicians are hypocrits and only out for themselves? 

In other news, bankers like bonuses... 

MillionDollarBoner_'s picture

Its not that they don't like guns.

They just don't like YOU to have guns !;o)

Colonel's picture

"My question is, why should we go out of our way to please such weaklings and frauds?"

You shouldn't try pleasing leftard idiots because you would never be able to anyway.

Cthonic's picture

+1 US Treasury platinum coin of arbitrary denomination.

cxp's picture

The dollar rally seen since yesterday is not purely cause of the FOMC minutes but a great is being played by a lingering fear that the US government will be shut down in Feb and March due to debt ceiling

Reports TNIFeed

Monk's picture

Armed teachers <> armed security.


Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

I trusted teachers as far as I could throw them when I was in school. I think having them armed would add to the education system looking like the prison system. Besides, even with a scool shooting here and there schools are still safer than pee wee football.

Tirpitz's picture

"even with a scool shooting here and there schools are still safer than pee wee football."

And especially so for teachers. :P

GMadScientist's picture

Armed teachers -> more teacher-on-student violence.

LFMayor's picture

what?  You've been reading too much Dickens. 

I also suspect that you've had entirely too much dick ins, but that's a matter of poor lifestyle choice.

alangreedspank's picture

If that is so, why are they even allowed to teach ?

aerojet's picture

The mere removal of the "gun-free zone" label would do the trick.

NoDebt's picture

For those who want to ban guns I would point out there is a mechanism in the Constitution to do that.  To write and ratify a new Constitutional Ammendment that would repeal or severly curtail the 2nd ammendment.  If you want to do it, that's how it's done.

Give it your best shot, baby (no pun intended).  Otherwise, deal with the fact that we have a right to own them and I, personally, very much enjoy exercising as many of my liberties as often as I can, without infinging on others doing the same, including the right to bear arms.

Bunch of clucking old hens who just want to tell other people how to live.  Fuck them.  I hope their own guards turn on them someday.

FeralSerf's picture

That mechanism has been subverted a number of times historically.  For example:

The ratifications of 14th, 15th and 16th Amendments also contain many irregularities that should legally make them invalid.

Quinvarius's picture

The NYT and their anti-gun whackos are basicly telling the gun owners, "we know where you live".  It was meant to be a threat upon their lives and property.

NoDebt's picture

It won't work.  They just published, in effect, a list of people not to fuck with.

viahj's picture

except that in order to be on that list, you have registered your weapon with the state. 

Freddie's picture

This is a common tactic by the left.  I was no fan of Bush, and he was no conservative, but they constantly had videos, pictures, articles and movies about shooting him. 

This is all designed to reach someone out there to actually do it.  This is the only reason too.