Liberal Hypocrisy: Guns for Me but Not for Thee.

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#1
Brock and the Glock: Armed men guarded Media Matters boss as he took $400,000 gun control donation
By Perry Chiaramonte
Published February 16, 2012

The recent revelation that the head of Media Matters walked the streets of Washington with a Glock-toting personal assistant acting as a bodyguard may make it a little awkward for the group the next time it seeks a donation from a gun control advocacy group.

Media Matters reportedly took more than $400,000 from the Joyce Foundation specifically earmarked
to promote a $600,000 initiative on "gun and public safety issues." At the same time, Media Matters' gun-guarded boss David Brock reportedly obsessed over his own security.

"It doesn't look good," said Fraser Seitel, president of Emerald Partners Communications and a public relations expert who authored the book "Rethinking Reputation."
"But it is a gray area in terms of public relations. Since (Media Matters) is so anti-NRA, to have their members packing heat leaves them open to criticism," he said.

Brock reportedly told confidantes that he feared for his safety and needed hired guns to keep him safe. The District's gun laws are among the strictest in the nation, which raises the question of whether Brock's assistant at times was in violation of its ban on carrying a concealed weapon.

"He had more security than a Third World dictator," one Media Matters employee told The Daily Caller. Brock's guards rarely left Brock's side and even accompanied him to his home in a tony Washington neighborhood where they "stood post" nightly, the source told the DC.
Media Matters proudly claims to be engaged in an information war to bring down Fox News, and has been exposed as a distributor of liberal talking points that regularly find their way into the reporting of mainstream media outlets, according to The Daily Caller.

Officials at the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation did not return repeated calls for comment. The nonprofit doles out donations to a variety of groups to address such issues as urban public education, job training, the environment, and gun violence.

A July 2010 grant of $400,000 to Media Matters was specifically targeted to support a gun and public safety issue initiative. As part of the initiative, Media Matters sent a representative, David Holthouse, undercover to a shooting sports trade show and had him write about the experience.
In a Media Matters article entitled, SHOT Show 2011: "The Second Amendment Ain't About Duck Hunting," Holthouse wrote that "increased lethality has become the nicotine of the firearms industry."
"Every year gun makers roll out new lines of assault rifles, tactical shotguns and handguns that hold even more bullets, or fire even faster, or boast new gadgetry that supposedly enables their user to kill other human beings more efficiently than ever before," reads a line from the January 2011 article.
Holthouse previously wrote an article for a Denver publication claiming he once planned a murder in such detail that he traveled to a neighboring state to buy a gun with a scratched-off serial number so it could not be traced back to him. His intended target was someone who attacked him as a child, forcibly ****** him as a 7 year old, according to the article.

The latest revelations about Media Matters has raised questions in Washington, with some lawmakers in Congress considering opening a investigation into the group's tax-exempt status, according to reports in The Daily Caller.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...oss-as-took-400000-gun-control/#ixzz1mb0CYEdx
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,082
3,006
258
Sunnydale
#3
Nothing new here. Liberals want the entire country to be like NYC where only the rich and famous are allowed to defend themselves. They aren't anti gun, they are anti 2nd amendment.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,820
18,545
513
Kingdom of Charis
#5
Media Matters are hypocritical scumbags? From the "No Shit, Sherlock" file.
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,789
1,347
693
#6
Nothing new here. Liberals want the entire country to be like NYC where only the rich and famous are allowed to defend themselves. They aren't anti gun, they are anti 2nd amendment.
Yup. It's all bullshit.
Media Matters are hypocritical scumbags? From the "No Shit, Sherlock" file.
All 4 of these. Same as Rosie O'Donnell needing an armed bodyguard for her kids, etc. etc...
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#8
These guys have no problem with having guns for themselves. They want to control us, and to do so they know they need weapons. It has nothing to do with hating guns, or even safety. It has everything to do with control. Liberals want to dismantle the various amendments so they can control us and secure power for themselves.
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,903
15,294
303
#9
I don't necessarily object to the bodyguard thing though I do recognize the tremendous hypocrisy. But this guy didn't have a license to have the gun, which is likely legislation that this Brock guy wanted.

The law is the law, and money and politics and the like don't discriminate. He ought to be charged with something for allowing illegally armed people to be around him.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#10
Doesn't seem that hypocritical. Law enforcement and private bodyguards usually seem like part of the groups they think they should own guns. It's not like the guy got caught with an unregistered gun by himself. If a guy was lobbying for MADD would he be a hypocrite for hiring a driver when he went out drinking?

Question for the gun guys: In D.C. can't a private bodyguard carry a concealed weapon? Not necessarily talking about some thug in a rapper's entourage, but what if the guy is a retired/off-duty cop? I would imagine there's quite a demand for private security in D.C.

Disclaimer:
I think the gun laws in places like D.C., Chicago and other places are bullshit, not arguing for gun control.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#11
Doesn't seem that hypocritical. Law enforcement and private bodyguards usually seem like part of the groups they think they should own guns. It's not like the guy got caught with an unregistered gun by himself. If a guy was lobbying for MADD would he be a hypocrite for hiring a driver when he went out drinking?

Question for the gun guys: In D.C. can't a private bodyguard carry a concealed weapon? Not necessarily talking about some thug in a rapper's entourage, but what if the guy is a retired/off-duty cop? I would imagine there's quite a demand for private security in D.C.

Disclaimer:
I think the gun laws in places like D.C., Chicago and other places are bullshit, not arguing for gun control.
I think the hypocrisy comes from the fact that poor and middle class people (who liberals love with all their heart) that "fear for their safety" just like this asshole can't afford to hire body guards and police escorts to keep them safe, yet these liberal groups press fol laws that do not allow them to protect themselves. Elitism is the word I think we're looking for here.
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,903
15,294
303
#12
Oh yeah, totally. He's getting a 6 figure check for strict gun regulations and somebody is breaking the law with a firearm so the limousine liberal can feel safe.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,820
18,545
513
Kingdom of Charis
#13
I think the hypocrisy comes from the fact that poor and middle class people (who liberals love with all their heart) that "fear for their safety" just like this asshole can't afford to hire body guards and police escorts to keep them safe, yet these liberal groups press fol laws that do not allow them to protect themselves. Elitism is the word I think we're looking for here.
"Healthcare and Wifi for all, but Guns? Pshhh... That's only for us rich people."
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,789
1,347
693
#14
Doesn't seem that hypocritical. Law enforcement and private bodyguards usually seem like part of the groups they think they should own guns. It's not like the guy got caught with an unregistered gun by himself. If a guy was lobbying for MADD would he be a hypocrite for hiring a driver when he went out drinking?

Question for the gun guys: In D.C. can't a private bodyguard carry a concealed weapon? Not necessarily talking about some thug in a rapper's entourage, but what if the guy is a retired/off-duty cop? I would imagine there's quite a demand for private security in D.C.

Disclaimer:
I think the gun laws in places like D.C., Chicago and other places are bullshit, not arguing for gun control.
Cops (and retired cops) have federal carry rights, actually.

I think the hypocrisy comes from the fact that poor and middle class people (who liberals love with all their heart) that "fear for their safety" just like this asshole can't afford to hire body guards and police escorts to keep them safe, yet these liberal groups press fol laws that do not allow them to protect themselves. Elitism is the word I think we're looking for here.
Exactly. It's pure hypocrisy on their part.

"Healthcare and Wifi for all, but Guns? Pshhh... That's only for us rich people."
Bad part is, a lot of liberals really feel that way.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#17
I think the hypocrisy comes from the fact that poor and middle class people (who liberals love with all their heart) that "fear for their safety" just like this asshole can't afford to hire body guards and police escorts to keep them safe, yet these liberal groups press fol laws that do not allow them to protect themselves. Elitism is the word I think we're looking for here.
Definitely more elitist than hypocrisy. It'd be more hypocritical if the guy said that nobody should be allowed to hire bodyguards except himself.

Cops (and retired cops) have federal carry rights, actually.
That's kinda what I thought. So it's kind of bullshit for the "journalist" in the article to automatically assume the guy was breaking the law. Kind of like how they automatically assume everything that isn't a Revolutionary War musket is an assault weapon...
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,495
22,147
398
Northern California
#18
I think the hypocrisy comes from the fact that poor and middle class people (who liberals love with all their heart) that "fear for their safety" just like this asshole can't afford to hire body guards and police escorts to keep them safe, yet these liberal groups press fol laws that do not allow them to protect themselves. Elitism is the word I think we're looking for here.
This. Wealthy people really don't need to own firearms. They live in better neighborhoods with less crime and more access to law enforcement, and if they feel threatened have the means to employ private security. However if I want to protect myself or my family, and cannot afford these types of things, I'm shit out of luck (in their minds).
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,789
1,347
693
#19
And military doesn't... Fucking bullshit.
Giving federal carry to military would be a clusterfuck - too hard to verify in a timely manner, and would get the Kirk crowd screaming about armed soldiers in the streets. As it is, LEOs are supposed to call the jurisdiction theyre visiting and carrying in, and the locals generally call their agency to verify. Can you imagine trying to do this with military units?

Definitely more elitist than hypocrisy. It'd be more hypocritical if the guy said that nobody should be allowed to hire bodyguards except himself.



That's kinda what I thought. So it's kind of bullshit for the "journalist" in the article to automatically assume the guy was breaking the law. Kind of like how they automatically assume everything that isn't a Revolutionary War musket is an assault weapon...
Except that liberals want to ban things like "assault clips" - the same thing likely in the mag well of the Glock, HK, SIG, etc that their body guard is carrying under their sport coat. Or the same liberals that want to ban scary "assault weapons," when their bodyguard probably has one stashed in the back of that armored SUV, along with plenty of loaded "high capacity magazines" to go with it - they might even have the group therapy option installed...

It's fucking hypocrisy.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,495
22,147
398
Northern California
#20
Except that liberals want to ban things like "assault clips" - the same thing likely in the mag well of the Glock, HK, SIG, etc that their body guard is carrying under their sport coat. Or the same liberals that want to ban scary "assault weapons," when their bodyguard probably has one stashed in the back of that armored SUV, along with plenty of loaded "high capacity magazines" to go with it - they might even have the group therapy option installed...

It's fucking hypocrisy.
Not to mention it ignores why we have the 2nd Amendment. They say "you don't need a high capacity magazine to defend your home"... which is true... unless you're defending it from an oppressive army, foreign or domestic... which is the primary reasons for the 2nd Amendment.
 

Hate & Discontent

Yo, homie. Is that my briefcase?
Aug 22, 2005
15,789
1,347
693
#21
Not to mention it ignores why we have the 2nd Amendment. They say "you don't need a high capacity magazine to defend your home"... which is true... unless you're defending it from an oppressive army, foreign or domestic... which is the primary reasons for the 2nd Amendment.
"Put yourself in a scenario where you’ve been forced to use your pistol and have fired 7 rounds. And then another target appears. What’s faster, reloading under extreme stress or just pulling the trigger again…10 MORE TIMES?"

Quoting an acquaintance from NC on that one...

Larger magazines are definitely needed for home defense.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,495
22,147
398
Northern California
#22
"Put yourself in a scenario where you’ve been forced to use your pistol and have fired 7 rounds. And then another target appears. What’s faster, reloading under extreme stress or just pulling the trigger again…10 MORE TIMES?"

Quoting an acquaintance from NC on that one...

Larger magazines are definitely needed for home defense.
I would absolutely want to have one, don't get me wrong. I was just saying statistically it will often be unnecessary. Then again... which side of statistics do you want to be on when the consequence is death? In California we can't have anything over 10 rounds, so I always keep at least two magazines loaded for my 1911, but you're right, even though I can swap them quickly, those few seconds can be a game changer.
 

d0uche_n0zzle

**Negative_Creep**
Sep 15, 2004
46,791
6,917
763
F.U.B.A.R
#23
An armed society is a polite society.

The more guns the better. The world would quickly rid itself of massive assholes with more guns on the streets.

Shall not be infringed... It use to mean something until a few turds in the punch bowl showed up.

And all anti self-defense people should live in the fantasy land they desire, unarmed.
 

Jon the Cop

Registered User
Oct 20, 2008
1,040
0
111
Indiana
#24
Giving federal carry to military would be a clusterfuck - too hard to verify in a timely manner, and would get the Kirk crowd screaming about armed soldiers in the streets. As it is, LEOs are supposed to call the jurisdiction theyre visiting and carrying in, and the locals generally call their agency to verify. Can you imagine trying to do this with military units?
Where in the law does it say I have to call ahead in order to carry?
 

Motor Head

HIGHWAY TRASH REMOVAL
Jan 23, 2006
10,385
419
243
Land of hicks and rubes.
#25
HR218 put an end to officer's having to "check in" with the local pd if they are carrying concealed out of state. The fine print does state that a police officer can be arrested for carrying concealed, but HR218 is an affirmative defense to any charge that can be presented to the judge.