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:
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...