Saturday, January 5, 2013

Anti-Gun Newspaper Hires Armed Guards

Wiki image
Brandon Smith, Contributor
Activist Post

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 Dianne 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 Dianne 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…

You can contact Brandon Smith at: Join today and learn what it means to step away from the system and build something better. To contribute to the growth of the Safe Haven Project, and to help us help others in relocating, or to support the creation of barter networks across the country, visit our donate page here:


This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.


Anonymous said...

that was Awesome!

Anonymous said...

Many countys rely on the Sheriff as final control for CC permits. When the CC process was allowed by law one of the conditions was the Sheriff would provide a public record of CC permits. This was considered as a method the public would have to keep an eye on the sheriff and the chance he would refuse Union members or females or people on the other side of town etc. Sheriff discrimination in pulling over certain people has proven the likelihood of other points in behavior to consider. Keeping close watch on the process does not threaten those already armed.

Anonymous said...

Aren't they trying to create social unrest by telling people to get proactive with guns? Is there a way of being pro second amendment without setting the stage for chaos? This is one of the reasons I can't quite join the chorus. There seems to be some backhanded play here that sounds a lot like the blind support of ron paul. I certainly haven't joined any anti-gun chorus, mind you.

Max Gold said...

Nobody has a problem with Professional Law Enforcement Agencies utilising guns, it's the Gun Nuts everyone is worried about, like the person who wrote this nonsense article. Talk about raving lunatic, does society really want obsessed, aggressive and abusive loons like the person who wrote this article owning a gun, I think not!

Anonymous said...

"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.........."

Stuff like that would pass as satire or dark comedy 20 years ago.

The 7:40 comment is balanced and reasonable.

Anonymous said...

@ Max Gold - Are you actually being serious?

In order to have a Concealed Carry Permit in most(if not all) U.S states requires you to take a certification test proving you are qualified(trained) enough to properly use a weapon.

Never mind that half the people that article listed probably are trained private security workers/bodyguards or police or federal agents and such, the most common people to be granted concealed carry permits(especially in "tough on guns" New York).

For a newspaper to clearly state that guns are a problem and then when threatened immediately resort to getting some people with guns to protect them is extreme hypocrisy.

Suggesting that Brandon Smith is a "raving lunatic" for pointing out this hypocrisy only shows yourself to be a "raving lunatic" obsessed with your own agenda and oblivious to all other realities.

Suggesting that someone who supports gun rights so people can DEFEND themselves is "aggressive" is downright laughable, but then I'm guessing you probably are used to being laughed at with comments like that.


Anonymous said...

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

The author of this article regularly, writes about evil big banks (I and most here agree with what he writes) yet all of us use banks, evidenced by our online presence.
I guess we also must use electricity from those big evil power corporations who force smart meters on us, another topic covered at this site.
Evil oil companies, destroying Louisiana, fracking and their other heinous crimes are often reported here, but right now we have a headline up titled 'Drought Threatens Mississippi River, YOUR GASTANK, Your Pantry'.
Hmm, I guess the authors here use gasoline from those evil companies.........I confess, I do to.
Good thing the hypocrisy police are only going after people who oppose guns, the rest of us are safe.........for now!

PS, I hope none of you people use any computer software of any type from Microsoft! Otherwise you are obviously NWO conspirators who want to enslave the world after culling it with various eugenic projects.........just sayin.

Nemetron 2000 said...

All I know is that these gun store owners and gun manufactures are raking in the dough right now. I'm sure they don't mind the government continually spewing its anti-gun rhetoric if it keeps the citizens emptying their store shelves. Personally, I believe guns are too goddamn expensive to begin with, and the recent hysteria and subsequent scarcity is raising their prices even higher.

Such a phenomena doesn't really help the people that barely have two nickles to rub together. You know, the people who are some of the hardest hit victims of this whole globalization and fiat debt based currency nonsense.

Anonymous said...

"Nobody has a problem with Professional Law Enforcement Agencies utilising guns, it's the Gun Nuts everyone is worried about, like the person who wrote this nonsense article."

Hey, Max, he's writing about the United States, (where he lives). Not Australia, (where you live).

m said...

The American public is being dumbed down, purposely, so we will be more easily subdued.

Anonymous said...

Another lying propaganda piece, dividing and conquering people into pro and anti-gun.

"The Obama Administration, of course, responded negatively to the NRA’s position...."

I heard LaPierre state the NRA position, which was that we needed armed security at schools (1/3 already have it, including at the Virginia Tech and Columnbine massacares) and NO NEW LAWS.

Then I heard Obama say that ONLY more armed guards at school without tighter laws to prevent the sale of arms to the unfit and banning weapons of mass murder was inadequate. He did NOT say armed guards were wrong but that ONLY more armed guards was an insufficient response in a nation with 30,000 gun deaths a year.

I am tired of the lies of the NRA and their shills. If more guns meant more safety, the US would not be the most dangerous of all 35 advanced nations (by 90-99% more gun homocides per captia); it would be the safest. The safest have strict gun laws: Japan has 2-12 gun homicides a year (with 128 millin people), the UK has 35, Germany, with many 25 milllion private guns has 120, Spain and Austria have fewer than 50. We have over 11,000 gun murders a year, the majority with family and friends (per FBI stats), and the chances of a home with guns having a gun killing are 270% higher than non-gun homes, according to the Harvard study which reviewed the literature on gun violence.

Lies, lies, lies. Those who want rational gun laws are accused of wanting to ban all guns (a lie); those who want reasonsable regulations (like mandatory background checks on ALL gun sales)are a falsely portrayed as wanting to confiscate our guns. It's all lies. The cost of these lies: a society which, compared to all other peer nations, has 90-99% more gun homicides per capita. 30,000 gun deaths a year, more in the past 20 years than all the fascists in WWII killed.

We have met the enemy and he is us. The lies enable the bloodshed, which has all but stopped in all other wealthy, advanced nations with rule of law, and the divide and conquer tactic of calling those wanting rational, uniform laws, strictly enforced, anti-gun is designed to create conflict and thwart any effective action.

In the 80's Australia had a horrendous mass murder of 35 people; they responded with strict new laws, and tho 15% of Australians own guns, they have only about 15-20 gun homicides a year.

They did something about it. The lies and divisive tactics of this article are intended to make sure nothing happens, that the massive bloodship, 10 times greater than the 9/11 killings each year, continue. The only beneficiary are the gun manufacturers who see increased profit each time a mass murder takes place. The NRA speaks for these death profiteers.

"Only love is powerful enough to defeat hatred." MLK

"First they ignore us, then they mock us, then they attack us: then we win." Ghandi

"Love your enemy." Jesus

Anonymous said...

Gun murders:

Japan (2006--2), in recent years 12

US: 11,000.

The US has 1/3 of all private guns with 4% of the population. If more guns meant more safety, we would have the lowest rate of murder of all advanced nations, not the highest!

Anonymous said...

I don't completely disagree with you but if the U.S didn't have the highest rates of drug use and abuse(prescription and "illicit"), the highest rates of mental illnesses and such, some of the worst social class imbalances, and the most violence obsessed media/T.V/film industry in the world then those statistics would be much different.

Reducing the amount of guns without addressing the social problems that make people violent will only serve to change the name on the statistics, not actually alter the stats.

Instead of 11,000 gun deaths there would be 11,000 non-gun deaths.

How would that solve the problems of a violence obsessed society?

It certainly doesn't help that the government "leads by example" - brutally mass-murdering anyone that disagrees with them or has issues with U.S geopolitical strategies.

In such a society removing the guns will not remove the violence, just shift it into a different form of violence.

Removing or reducing the guns is like using a band-aid to treat multiple gunshot wounds, you may be able to say "see we treated the problem, you can't see the wound anymore", but covering it with a band-aid won't stop the bleeding, infections and so on that will/can still be terminal.

I hate this "easy button" mentality, fixing the social problems may be more difficult than taking away guns but it's the only way to actually solve the violence problems.

Reducing or removing guns is treating the effects rather than the cause of the problems.


Anonymous said...

Oops, to be clear my last post was directed at Dale.


Brandon Smith said...


Your logic is hilariously flawed.

I am against CORRUPTION in the banking system, not the concept of bank patronage. Just as I am against the violent misuse of firearms, but not the right to have a firearm.

Fighting for an honest financial system while forced to live and work (for now) in a corrupt one is not hypocritical, it's common sense.

Attempting to promote the destruction of other peoples constitutional gun rights while exercising gun rights yourself is, though, definitely hypocritical.

The Journal News is against firearms ownership and the right to self defense PERIOD. Even for law abiding non-corrupt citizens. Yet, they surround themselves with gun packing bodyguards.

There is a big difference.

Please think before you speak. It would save us both a lot of time.

Anonymous said...

Attempting to label someone who is winning an argument is a tactic I normally see from the know how it goes, conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat, etc. etc.
Framing the debate or limiting the definitions is another. I take exception to your following claim.

Attempting to promote the destruction of other peoples constitutional (gun) rights while exercising (those same) rights yourself is HYPOCRITICAL.

Yes Mr. Smith it is. I did not defend the newspaper or deny its hypocrisy.
Banks are stealing peoples homes, a mans home is his castle. Banks are stealing billions and using our volunteer military as their own personal band of mercenaries as they command our politicians to start wars they feel will help business. CRIMINAL and far worse than changing gun laws. You deal with banks, right.
Big oil made billions in Iraq and has sown up rights to billions more for decades to come. You use oil and gas right.

Good thing the hypocrisy police are only going after people who oppose guns, the rest of us are safe.........for now!

I took exception with the SELECTIVE high and mighty righteous indignation you showed over gun right hypocrisy while you participate in the same behavior (we all do) in other more serious matters. Please read before you respond, it would save us both a lot of time.

Seriously, I respect you guys for not censoring me (not even one time) and allowing my anti gun rants which clearly go against the grain here.

Anonymous said...

You can spot the gun control shills like ‘anonymous’ at 5:28. They all use the same bogus argument that the U.S. has more gun homicides than other countries. What they don’t say is that these homicides are all concentrated in specific urban enclaves with the most stringent gun laws. Rural areas of the country have very low violent crime rates despite widespread firearm ownership. There is no correlation between gun availability and homicides. All the countries with low murder rates are mono-cultural while the most multi-cultural ones have high rates of violent crime. If strict gun control worked, Mexico would not have homicide rates higher than the U.S. Oh, that’s right; Mexico has an illegal drug problem. Perhaps that is your correlation with violent crime.

Anonymous said...

The worst thing about gun salesmen is that they lie like car salesmen. Three big lies easily exposed.

The Mexican drug problem is caused by USA demand and the FACT that the CIA runs it and floods Mexico with AMERICAN guns!
In Mexico a whopping 70% of gun crimes there use guns from the USA according to Congress and the BBC.

Rural America strives to cope with a spiraling crime rate....according to the Christian Science Monitor.

Multi Cultural Canada.....far more multi cultural than the USA. Hardly any murders.

Anyways, I work for free for the good of my common pay. So I will leave the gun salesmen to earn their pay by posting up blatant lies to support their filthy business of helping people kill each other. Shame on all of them.

Anonymous said...

The only part of the post at 12:35 that is credible is “…the FACT that the CIA runs it…”. Of course our government runs guns into Mexico; to facilitate their drug business. The ‘Fast and Furious’ scandal was just the tip of the iceberg that got exposed. And you want use to surrender our guns to the same people?
Any recent escalation of crime in rural areas has the same root cause and the same perpetrators: the drugs merchants, not the traditional population of these areas.
By blaming firearm availability you deflect attention from the root cause and the people behind it.
Your pay reflects the value of your work.

Brandon Smith said...


No, you are trying to use a common Alinsky tactic, which is to falsely assert that the person pointing out a particular injustice "cannot live up to his own standards".

You do this in order to distract away from the original discussion and turn it into a battle over my personal character rather than a discussion on gun rights.

However, I clearly showed how your assertion of "hypocrisy" on my part is erroneous, meaning it makes no sense, and has little or nothing to do with the obvious hypocrisy of The Journal News. I am not trying to take away the constitutional rights of Americans; they are.

Until you address this point instead of tapdancing around it and trying in weasel-like fashion to make this about ME instead of the issue at hand, your argument bears no weight. Try harder, guy. Present something tangible.

Brandon Smith said...


Oh, and the establishment uses Ad Hominem attacks, which are false labels designed to distract. If a label fits, though, it is NOT Ad Hominem, it is an honest observation. Once again, there is a difference between what they do and what I do that you are conveniently ignoring.

Anonymous said...

"According to statistics assembled from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Center for Disease Control and the Federal Government, firearms related homicides are minuscule in comparison to other the other 'big killers' in the United States.

If we look at homicide statistics in the United States it’s clear that more murders are committed with knives, bats, hammers and poisons than with firearms. As Kurt Nimmo recently noted [1], ' the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outpaces the number of murders committed with a rifle.'”

Anonymous said...

In the 20th century, governments murdered 1/3 BILLION of their own citizens, NOT including war. Mass murder by government dwarfs all private violence. We keep our firepower because we know how dangerous THEY are to us, THEY behave slightly better because THEY know how dangerous we are to THEM.

Anonymous said...

Banks are the biggest single entity taking away people's constitutional rights. Anyone who cannot understand that is not paying attention.......or working an agenda.

Post a Comment