Anti-gun fundraising event needed guns for protection

Bugfatty300

Bugfatty300

Buddha Squirrel
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
10,368
Location
NC
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/16/brock-and-glock-armed-men-guarded-media-matters-boss-as-took-400000-gun-control/

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

So it is hypocritical to speak out against guns while you got a few gun packing "assistants" standing behind you? I certainly think so. How does someone like this Brock fellow balance these seemingly conflicting ideas? Is he just more important than that the average Joe?
 
Bugfatty300 said:
So it is hypocritical to speak out against guns while you got a few gun packing "assistants" standing behind you?
Click to expand...
I wasn't under the impression that these people were against guns in themselves, as simple objects, but against the violence they see as resulting from widespread gun ownership.
 
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.
Click to expand...

How are "gun and public safety issues" anti-gun? Sounds like hyperbole
 
I am against people like Jared Lee Loughner being able to just buy guns and ammo then go shoot innocent people.

At the same time, I recognize the need for law enforcement and security personal to carry guns to protect people from the nutjobs.
 
warpus said:
How are "gun and public safety issues" anti-gun? Sounds like hyperbole
Click to expand...

Traitorfish said:
I wasn't under the impression that these people were against guns in themselves, as simple objects, but against the violence they see as resulting from widespread gun ownership.
Click to expand...

If you read the Media Matters article linked in the OP article about a firearm exhibition, the fixation on guns themselves, is pretty apparent.

"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"

I dunno. That sounds like a statement about guns and not their owners. Maybe not. It's pretty ignorant either way.

As for the specific act of carrying a concealed weapon, Media Matters seems to take a pretty tough stance against it. Yet they apparently employed people who concealed carry to watch their backs. I'm just not sure how they justify that given their rhetoric.

Any other ideas?
 
First, since when was Fox News a reliable source?

Second, this line says it all to me:

Brock reportedly told confidantes that he feared for his safety and needed hired guns to keep him safe.
Click to expand...

When you're speaking out against guns, it's reasonable to want protection from those very same people who have guns. It only takes one gun owner to be a wacko and shoot him.
 
meh, this is a non-issue. You could argue that until guns are removed from society, you do need armed security to protect from those people with guns. The organization has not accomplished removing guns from society yet, so until that happens, they may need armed protection.
 
IdiotsOpposite said:
First, since when was Fox News a reliable source?
Click to expand...

Take it or leave it. It's a political opinion piece who's source is a conservative news group. So you can believe it or not. I'll understand if you don't.

When you're speaking out against guns, it's reasonable to want protection from those very same people who have guns. It only takes one gun owner to be a wacko and shoot him.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's reasonable to want to own and carry a gun for protection. I don't know why Media Matters thinks it's not (but apparently they do).
 
Bugfatty300 said:
Exactly. It's reasonable to want to own and carry a gun for protection. I don't know why Media Matters thinks it's not (but apparently they do).
Click to expand...

Only because other people carry guns who might use them dangerously. The man in the story wants to make that not the case, so that he can say something horribly upsetting in public without fear for his life - I think that's a truly laudable aim, personally.
 
Flying Pig said:
Only because other people carry guns who might use them dangerously.
Click to expand...

You mean there are criminals and unstable persons who carry weapons for the purposes of doing harm to others? Tell me something I don't know.

Flying Pig said:
The man in the story wants to make that not the case, so that he can say something horribly upsetting in public without fear for his life - I think that's a truly laudable aim, personally.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I'm not buying this crap that he says controversial things thus he has a right to the personal protection that a gun brings while others don't. That is nonsense. Being a hypocrite is not laudable.

Disgustipated said:
meh, this is a non-issue. You could argue that until guns are removed from society, you do need armed security to protect from those people with guns. The organization has not accomplished removing guns from society yet, so until that happens, they may need armed protection.
Click to expand...

Which is a pipe dream for American society. The organization should do something more feasible like ridding society of the common cold or faster than light travel for humans.
 
Bugfatty300 said:
I'm sorry but I'm not buying this crap that he says controversial things thus he has a right to the personal protection that a gun brings while others don't. That is nonsense. Being a hypocrite is not laudable.
Click to expand...

What? Everyone's entitled to hire security guards if they want, there's no suggestion that he's paying the mob or anything like that - the allegationo that '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' is, let's face it, pure speculation - poor even for Fox News. Everybody should have the right to say whatever they want without threat of violence; if they say something inflammatory or hateful then it's the State's job to punish them, not their neighbour's. After all, that's pretty much why we bother with a government in the first place.
 
Flying Pig said:
What? Everyone's entitled to hire security guards if they want
Click to expand...

Those who can afford them I guess. Not me.:(

whether Brock's assistant at times was in violation of its ban on carrying a concealed weapon' is, let's face it, pure speculation
Click to expand...

Which I haven't even mentioned.

So moving on...

Everybody should have the right to say whatever they want without threat of violence.
Click to expand...

Gee ya think so?

if they say something inflammatory or hateful then it's the State's job to punish them, not their neighbour's. After all, that's pretty much why we bother with a government in the first place.
Click to expand...

What? You've lost me.
 
Bugfatty300 said:
Gee ya think so?
Click to expand...

Yes, and I defy anyone to say otherwise - no matter what anyone says, no private individual has the right to take the law into their own hands. If you don't like it, call the police, and the state will either deal with it or tell you to go away. A huge part of the reason we have a government in the first place is so that it can deal with matters of justice in a disinterested, fair fashion.
 
Flying Pig said:
Yes, and I defy anyone to say otherwise - no matter what anyone says, no private individual has the right to take the law into their own hands. If you don't like it, call the police, and the state will either deal with it or tell you to go away. A huge part of the reason we have a government in the first place is so that it can deal with matters of justice in a disinterested, fair fashion.
Click to expand...

Who is saying otherwise? Are you in the right thread?
 
Bugfatty300 said:
"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"
Click to expand...

That reads like anti-ubergun, not anti-gun in general.
 
Flying Pig said:
That's what I said in the earlier post re-expressed, after you said 'you lost me'.
Click to expand...

You lost me because nothing has been said about this guy's free speech or lack there of. It seems you think someone or something here is advocating targeting people based on political statements? The subject is his apparent hypocrisy of utilizing guns for his personal security while his organization strongly disapproves (or so it appears) of others doing the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom