PDA

View Full Version : The Media Matters Gun Control Hypocrisy



ensbergcollector
02-17-2012, 11:56 AM
hey guys,

there are multiple articles but I will just link to the one. Basically, media matters is fighting for strong gun restrictions and is openly against concealed carry licenses. Yet, the head of media matters is protected by armed guards at all times. They even carried them illegally into DC. He excuse is that he fears for his life.

So, if he fears for his life, he can have guns, but your average citizen can't??

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/16/brock-and-glock-armed-men-guarded-media-matters-boss-as-took-400000-gun-control/

mrveggieman
02-17-2012, 12:02 PM
I am totally for the second amendment and agianst anyone or any group that wants to take away my right to defend myself and my family.

pghin08
02-17-2012, 12:50 PM
I don't understand why people take Media Matters seriously.

Star_Cards
02-17-2012, 01:28 PM
rather hypocritical. I'm not a gun person, but I don't really have an issue with people carrying weapons as long as they aren't going vigilante at the drop of a hat. Most people that carry guns legally are more than likely very responsible with them.

Wickabee
02-17-2012, 03:35 PM
Without guns, the King of England could just walk into your house and start pushing you around!

Seriously, though, this is a very grey area. I understand his fears about getting shot, since he is telling gun-owners they shouldn't have guns and, as a group, gun users shoot more people everyday than any other group...statistically speaking. Is this major hypocrisy? No. Is it hypocrisy? Yes, though necessary hypocrisy. Think of it this way:
Because of the current gun laws, which he is trying to change, he feels he needs armed guards in case of attack. Why armed? Well, the people who don't like him tend to like to shoot guns, so...

If he was to somehow get his way, he probably wouldn't feel as though he needs an armed guard. His hypocrisy is based entirely on what he is trying to fight. Being the type of person he is, he likely doesn't want to have to go around with an armed guard. Because things are as they are and don't appear to be anywhere near changing, he feels he needs an armed guard.

Basically, you're blaming him for giving into the system you're saying you want.

I couldn't care less about gun control in the US, so don't think I'm defending him or attacking anything. I'm not, I don't care. What I do care about is ragging on a guy because he's forced to live within the system he's trying to change.

INTIMADATOR2007
02-17-2012, 08:39 PM
Follow the money .It might open some eyes.

duane1969
02-18-2012, 10:31 AM
Without guns, the King of England could just walk into your house and start pushing you around!

Seriously, though, this is a very grey area. I understand his fears about getting shot, since he is telling gun-owners they shouldn't have guns and, as a group, gun users shoot more people everyday than any other group...statistically speaking. Is this major hypocrisy? No. Is it hypocrisy? Yes, though necessary hypocrisy. Think of it this way:
Because of the current gun laws, which he is trying to change, he feels he needs armed guards in case of attack. Why armed? Well, the people who don't like him tend to like to shoot guns, so...

If he was to somehow get his way, he probably wouldn't feel as though he needs an armed guard. His hypocrisy is based entirely on what he is trying to fight. Being the type of person he is, he likely doesn't want to have to go around with an armed guard. Because things are as they are and don't appear to be anywhere near changing, he feels he needs an armed guard.

Basically, you're blaming him for giving into the system you're saying you want.

I couldn't care less about gun control in the US, so don't think I'm defending him or attacking anything. I'm not, I don't care. What I do care about is ragging on a guy because he's forced to live within the system he's trying to change.

So essentially, your argument is that you think he wants nobody to have guns so that he doesn't have to have armed guards?

Counter-argument: He is an idiot that angers other people. If he wasn't that type of person then he wouldn't need armed guards to protect him. All of the legal gun owners should not have strict laws imposed upon them so that he can be a moron and not have to fear for his life for being like that.

What next? People who wear fur wanting to outlaw paint so that PETA members can't throw it on them?