Armed men guarded Media Matters boss as he took $400,000 gun control donation

[shadowrider]

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.

--snip--

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.


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

Yes it's fox. Sorry about that but the info is true. I looked for, but did NOT find this on either CNN or MSNBC.

[virginia mountainman]

1. wow

Guns for ME, not for thee...

And the ivory tower gets another stain

[RayTy]

2. I don't blame him

theres a lot of right wing nuts with guns and until we can outlaw all gunsn like other sensible countrys you cant be too careful.

[shadowrider]

4. And I'd agree with that IF IF IF the anti's allowed NORMAL everyday Americans

to have the same sense of security against right wing nuts or ANYONE bent on personal harm.

Until then, Bloomy etc. have two sets of rules. One for them, one for us.

[oneshooter]

13. What countries outlaw all guns?

[gejohnston]

23. about the only countries that actually outlaw privately owned guns

are Jamaica, Russia, and Japan. UK, not so much. Parts of Europe has about the same percentage of gun ownership as we do.
But for the average person who lives in the sticks or crappy neighborhood the meme is "get a dog" or "dial 911". It was not that long ago Brock was one of those right wing smear artists, so he can get a dog or dial 911 that antis tell the rest of us.

[TheWraith]

24. You mean "sensible countries" like Sudan, where firearms are banned?

Or "sensible countries" like Switzerland, where they entrust their citizens with 660,000 fully automatic military rifles kept in their homes, as well as almost a million civilian-owned guns?

Your perspective on other countries' gun laws--as well as our own--is lacking.

[PavePusher]

46. Hypocrisy as the new Liberal norm? Seriously?

[Callisto32]

52. "Outsiders"

like me see "one rule for me, another for thee" as the norm from both major parties.

I don't think it has to do with liberal/conservative much. Once again, a much more useful categorization is authoritarian/libertarian.

[PavePusher]

55. True. n/t

[Clames]

56. You need to have a chat with my cousins...

....currently visiting from the UK. You'll be much better educated on the laws that are passed in these so-called "sensible" countries. Have a wrench in the passenger compartment of your vehicle with no immediate plans to fix anything with it? That's considered a weapon and mandatory jail time. Caught with any kind of blade (even nail clippers with that tiny blade built in) on your person in public? Jail time. Have golf clubs in your vehicle and are not in direct transport to or from a golf course? Jail time. Yeah, real sensible laws there...

[oneshooter]

58. It doesn't matter to him. He believes that is "safer" than freedom.

[Clames]

73. We figured it up...

...and if I possessed the the same guns and amount of ammunition (which isn't much right now) that I currently do, I'd be looking at somewhere around a 600 year prison sentence..... I don't think it will be too long before these cousins decide their quality of life would be much better here than in England.

[Starboard Tack]

105. What a total crock of shit. You just lost all credibility.

Either you or your "cousins" just made that up. Cite us one example please of all those folk jailed in the UK for nail clippers and golf clubs. Cite the law that dictates "mandatory jail time" for having a wrench in the passenger compartment of a car.

[Clames]

110. I don't give a single sailing...

...shit if you think I'm credible or not. You have never been credible in this topic. People in question here who live in that country with firsthand knowledge vs. you who doesn't even have a firm grasp of the laws in this country. Laughable you are.

Examples?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1266170/Disabled-caravanner-prosecuted-keeping-penknife-car-use-picnics.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3613174/The-policeman-found-my-penknife.-Youre-going-down-mate-he-said.html

http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/penknife-pocket-makes-crook/story-11433734-detail/story.html



Basically people are told not to carry anything that could be even construed to be a bladed object on their person at anytime in public.

In recent years, laws criminalising knife possession in the United Kingdom have been strictly interpreted and applied by police and prosecutors to citizens and foreigners alike of all ages and backgrounds, even where the evidence supporting the crime is in doubt.[40][46] This development, combined with increasingly frequent application of such laws to marginal or inadvertent offenders by the police and the public prosecutor[34][47][48] can easily result in an arrest and a criminal charge in the event a person carrying a folding knife, scissors, plastic knife, multi-tool, or bladed object is detained and searched, and the defendant may have to wait weeks or months for a trial or other disposition of his case by the public prosecutor.[33][46][49][50][51][52][53][54] HM Customs officials in the Customs Inspection unit at the Mount Pleasant Postal Depot in London, aware of the steadily narrowing interpretation of what constitutes a legal knife in England and Wales, have begun confiscating knives imported through the mails, going so far as to individually test otherwise legal locking and non-locking[55] bladed pocket knives to see if they can be made to open their blades to the fully opened position with a practised "double-action of the wrist"; those that open fully and thus fail the 'test' are confiscated and destroyed as illegal 'gravity knives' under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.[56]

This hasn't even gotten as bad as it will with the newer legislation being expanded from "bladed objects" to now include "knives, bladed/pointed articles, and offensive weapons" . That last part is blanket that covers anything that can be construed to be used offensively which is why all tools have to be secured in a toolbox and in a location out of the reach of anyone in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle.


For all the shits I give about my credibility with you....

[Starboard Tack]

111. I don't think anyone has a firm grasp about the laws anywhere.

Not even lawyers and judges.
Regarding your links - you reference 2 cases and I must agree that they are outrageous examples of overstepping on the part of the police. Two incidents in 8 years, though, hardly a daily occurrence. Unfortunately, I have witnessed similar incidents in this country since 9/11. Not involving knives, but taking photos of tourist attractions which could be considered potential terrorist targets.
The laws regarding tools in cars in the UK is way over the top, but the law regarding gravity knives and blade length have been in place since 1959. I grew up under those laws and was pissed at the time that I couldn't own them, but it was a small price to pay, considering the prevalence of knife use by gangs, starting with the Teddy Boys and Spivs of the 1950's and then the Mods and Rockers of the 1960's. There is potential for violence in any society and when guns are not available, those who would commit violent acts resort to the next most effective weapon, the knife.
The problem with the cases you cited was the over zealous cops involved, who need to be disciplined and retrained. In my experience, which I admit is somewhat dated, their behavior was anomalous and nothing like I ever experienced, either as a citizen or as a cop.
I doubt if anyone ever got locked up for a nail clipper.

[spin]

131. The Brits have draconian knife laws. ...

and high rates of knife crime. That may or may not be relevant to a discussion on gun control in the United States.

I normally always have a knife on my person that would be illegal in the UK. Right now for example I have a fixed blade neck knife with a 3.5" blade in a sheath slung on a chain over my neck and shoulder in a cross draw fashion. I will probably use it shortly to open a package of food for a snack and I used it in the last hour to open a cardboard package.


Bark River Necker 2

I just returned from going up three blocks up the street to buy some cat food from a vet and I carried this knife with me under a sweat shirt. Technically this was a concealed weapon but since I have a concealed weapons permit in Florida I was legal. (Many states limit their carry permit to firearms.)

When I am wearing a pair of pants with a belt I usually carry a 4.5" fixed blade knife in a sheath either openly in the rural town where I live or concealed in a more urban area of Florida where the police might question me. I don't consider a knife to be a weapon as I have no training as a knife fighter.


ESEE-4

I'm sure that if firearms were ever banned the next step in our nation would be to pass strict knife laws like in the UK. Of course I would oppose such laws just as I now oppose gun laws which ban firearms.

[Starboard Tack]

132. And I'm with you on all that.

[spin]

133. We do somethings agree. That's positive. (n/t)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

112. Well said.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

137. That's one of the weirder falsehoods I've seen today.

All of that is simply nonsense - it's entirely legal to have wrenches, golf clubs and nail clippers here in the UK, I can assure you.

Guns are tightly regulated, as are certain types of knife and martial arts weapon, and it's technically illegal to carry a knife with a non-folding blade longer than three inches in public "without good reason", but in practice just about any reason (such as "taking it too or from work&quot is good.

I don't know how your cousins came to believe otherwise, or whether you misunderstood what they are saying, but not merely is it wrong, but it doesn't even bear a passing resemblance to reality.

Our gun control laws are some of the best in the world, and one of the reasons our homicide rate is a lot lower than America's. They are, indeed, sensible.

[clffrdjk]

138. At two years old

You could have just started a new thread

[gejohnston]

139. not one of the reasons at all

Our gun control laws are some of the best in the world, and one of the reasons our homicide rate is a lot lower than America's. They are, indeed, sensible.

UK had no gun control laws until the 1920s, which were passed because of the red scare. The US varied by state (at the time stricter in the south and New York). As you can see, the homicide rate was not only far lower than the US, but lower than UK is today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade#1910s

[SteveW]

101. Thanks for your tongue-through-cheek sarcasm! Great stuff. nt

[Bonhomme Richard]

3. I Brock were carrying that would be one thing but professional security......

that's a horse of a different color. Fox....a non story.

[shadowrider]

5. I can't afford personal security. Is my life any less important? n/t

[Bonhomme Richard]

29. I can't afford security either....

and my life isn't any less important and that's why I have a CCW. Do I carry often...no, but I have that option. Just sayin' I don't hold it against him, each to their own, though it does annoy me if he were to deny me my option.

[DonP]

9. Where does it say he was "professional security"?

It refers to him as "Brock's personal assistant".

Kind of a vague description, but I'm assuming i he actually was "hired muscle" of some sort, they would describe him as security.

[KT2000]

6. not getting the inconsistency here

gun control is not about taking away everyone's gun. I thought it was about making sure there are background checks and that sort of thing. If the body guard bought the gun legally, is not insane or a convicted felon - what is the problem?

[DonP]

7. Carrying in DC is against the law - period.

Doesn't matter is he bought it legally.

Carrying outside your home is flat against the law in DC. It's a felony IIRC.

Wonder if he went through all the hoops to register it in DC either?

[valerief]

12. So cops don't have guns in DC? nt

[DonP]

17. Cops yes, private citizens no

Remember that whole Heller vs. DC case in 2008?

That cost DC over $3 million in legal fees just to allow guns in private homes. On the street, no f'in way.

Again, where does it say this guy was "professional security"? It says he was a "personal assistant".

But feel free to stand up for another 1%er. The rules should be different for rich people, right?

[valerief]

19. And the Secret Service don't have guns? And the military don't have guns? nt

[DonP]

22. I think of the Secret Service as "Cops" and the military only carries when on duty

... and that does not include carrying arms on the street or on base except for MPs, and even they need special orders to carry a loaded weapon, see Posse Commitatus and the Ft. Hood shooting.

Personal weapons are not permitted either, with rare exceptions for general staff.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the SS only carries when on duty too. But I'm guessing they'd prefer not to answer any questions about it.

[TheWraith]

26. You seem to be missing that this guy was none of the above.

He was simply a private citizen who thought it wise to protect himself and his boss by having a gun available. But his boss is taking big money from people who want to insure that other private citizens aren't allowed to do that. It's a hypocrisy issue--gun control for thee, but not for me.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. Feds are allowed carry 24/7

However, very few live in DC proper. The safe parts are too expensive, the rest of it too dangerous.

[PavePusher]

47. What point are you trying to make? n/t

[valerief]

49. See #7. Also, there are other non-gun threads here, too. nt

[PavePusher]

50. There is, of course, a vast gulf between carry as a Citizen....

and carry under the beneign mandate of government-agent authority.

Your attempt at a point is weak and off-topic. Please try again.

[jeepnstein]

113. Not really.

They don't have some kind of ordination ceremony before they hand you and ID card and tell you to strap it on. As a matter of fact the training that many police officers receive in the academy is laughable. But the popular media makes it seem that police officers have some innate ability to fight evil with their duty weapons as if they were a Marvel Comics hero. The truth of it is most of them are no more proficient than the average citizen. Some of the deputies I qualify with are struggling every year to make their minimum score.

Government is nice and does all sorts of good stuff for it's citizens. What it does not do is guarantee individual safety. That's up to us. Fortunately most of us are allowed to have the tools to provide for that because monsters are real. I've met them. And they look just like the rest of us until you get to know them better.

[DonP]

51. OK, that makes absolutely no sense at all

I have no idea what you mean by a "non gun thread"?

I foolishly assumed you were actually asking a question in good faith and that you were benevolently ignorant of the DC gun laws.

I should know better from a gun grabby type.

Always willing to forgive the rich and famous like Don Imus and Sean Hannity carrying guns, but firmly against the regular citizens doing the same. How very elitist of you.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

76. valerief. This sentence:

"Also, there are other non-gun threads here, too. nt"

is very confusing to me. Can you do me a favor and, post the links to the threads which you are referring? I would very much appreciate it. Thanks.

[burf]

21. See # 16

It links to the trials and tribulations of a young lady, a resident of DC, who decided she wanted to own a gun.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. There are exemptions for high level private security

Not all that sure how it works, but its out there in DC. I want to recall that Ted Kennedy had private security at some point who carried everywhere the Senator went. I assume other high profile celebs with pull do the same.

In LA county its very hard for a civilian to get a CCW, but those that do are mostly celebs. They hire retired cops as their security who are allowed to carry as retired LEOs.

It is indeed one law for the rich and another for the rest of us.

[spin]

31. Of course. The 1% have far more rights than the average citizen...

It's good to be rich or famous in our nation.

[one-eyed fat man]

40. Teddy Kennedy's private security got busted

He was arrested by DC cops for an unregistered Uzi submachine gun.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/www//seattletimes.nwsource.com/counterpunch.org/www.travelblog.org/VC/www.fas.usda.gov/excredits/youtube.com/www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=437140&mesg_id=437225

Sen. Edward Kennedy's private bodyguard, hired for a trip to South America, was arrested last week when he arrived at the Capitol with two submachine guns and ammunition, officials said Tuesday.

The bodyguard was identified as Charles Stein, 47, a former police officer in San Fernando, Calif., who has worked for the Massachusetts Democrat in the past, providing security on overseas trips. He was released on his own recognizance after appearing in court.

Despite Kennedy's personal intervention, he was unable to get Stein's confiscated weapons returned to him. They were destroyed. The trip to South America was made and Stein was "loaned" weapons by the US embassies.

[gejohnston]

41. IIRC

He had two SMGs. the Uzi and a Beretta Model 12 in a gym bag. He also had a HK P-7 pistol in a holster.

[gejohnston]

25. you have not been reading the propaganda very well

Background checks have been around for almost 20 years
they bitch about liberal CCW laws
banning certain guns for now, more later
defending "duty to retreat" laws even from your own home

In DC, he was not legally possessing the gun. He was not legally carrying the gun.
Most gun control advocates have a problem with 99 percenters who do own and legally carry (including defend themselves, accusing them of being hoping to kill someone)
Massive hypocritical inconsistency.

[Callisto32]

54. Who would want to kill YOU?

You aren't important like THEY are.

[one-eyed fat man]

38. In DC?????

Carrying a concealed weapon in DC is against the law except for Law Enforcement. Since when does being the 'personal assistant' for an anti-gun big shot come with a badge or a "Get Out of Jail Free" card?

Special rules for the rich and politically connected? Sounds like a 1% attitude to me.

[Glaug-Eldare]

114. Once again, shades of Ed Hale at BWI.

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Ed Hale, the (white) CEO of First Mariner Bancorp in Baltimore attempted to smuggle a loaded gun onto an airliner (in his carry-on luggage), and received one year of unsupervised probation before judgment (sentencing without conviction, designed to extend lenience for low-risk offenders). He also (still) possesses one of those rare personal protection handgun permits, simply because he is a wealthy and influential person. He is free as we type because he is rich and white.

On the other hand, Charles F. Williams, a (black) citizen who is not a bank executive, was arrested for possession of a handgun (in a backpack, not in his pants) while attempting to take public transportation from his girlfriend's house to his own. He could not have possibly received a handgun permit, because he hadn't been attacked multiple times, and didn't have the money to buy a legislator's help. He was convicted in Circuit Court and sentenced to three years in prison, plus three years of supervised probation on release. He is imprisoned as we type because he is neither rich nor white.

[SteveW]

102. In addition to DonP's post...

Even if the "assistant" or "bodyguard" were legally able to carry a gun, what was going through the mind of Media Matter that they suddenly thought this money-toter might be in danger? Did MM think it was O.K. to essentially HIRE someone to carry-concealed, thus availing itself of personal protection, even while advocating gun-control for others?

I'm willing to bet MM opposes concealed-carry legislation. Ditto Joyce Foundation.

Please note that Bloomberg has armed bodyguards, and Jodie Foster (an ardent anti-gun actor) had armed bodyguards around her when she attended Yale 30+ years ago; you know, bringing guns on campus before bringing guns on campus was cool.

[valerief]

8. Aren't security people supposed to carry? I don't want Drunken Joe Idiot to carry. nt

[shadowrider]

10. See post 7. It's against the law in D.C. n/t

[burf]

16. The laws regarding DC gun ownership are all

covered in the "Emily gets her gun" thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117210722

But as I have said before, the laws only apply to the great unwashed.

[DonP]

11. Nobody carries in DC, just like Chicago, no permits, no CCW, no armed security

Dick Anthony Heller is a government security guard for SCOTUS (IIRC) and was not allowed to carry his duty weapon home with him.

In DC there is no such thing as legally armed private security.

Where does it say he was "security"? I read "personal assistant".

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Having seen armed private security first hand...in the presence of DC police, I assume there is

some way to get it approved if you are rich and well connected.

[DonP]

20. Just like NYC, how rich are you and how connected

But we have a coterie of 1% apologists here.

Nothing they do matters as long as they support gun control, even if they are raving hypocrites like Brock.

I'm just guessing he wasn't worried about being robbed by the GOP on the street either.

[oneshooter]

43. There is a way. Been there, Done that.

Made 4 trips to DC as a part of my security job. Big banker type from Joberg, got permits for sidearms only, the full auto stuff was in "personel baggage" of the banker.
Really paid well, no problems, 2day turn around.

Oneshooter

[grasswire]

18. so FOX is teaming up with Alan Dershowitz to ruin Media Matters?

Is that the game here?

I call bogus on that story.

[PavePusher]

48. Is it unfactual? Cites, please. n/t

[rl6214]

27. Well that's not at all hypocritical,

is it?

[shadowrider]

28. -- snort --

[burf]

30. I've always liked that analogy. n/t

[DanTex]

32. Thanks for bringing the FOX News attack campaign against Media Matters here to DU!!

Y'all crack me up with these right-wing links you keep posting. Yes, I know this is the gungeon, so posting attacks against liberals by ringt-wingers at Fox, Townhall, WorldNetDaily etc. is considered just swell, but I'm just sayin...

[gejohnston]

34. I remember when Brock was one of them

and switched sides after American Spectator fired him. Since I don't watch Fox, I don't know how much of MM is real. I am skeptical leopards who claim to change their spots.
If it is true, it would not be the first time some gun control advocate commits a gun crime or carries illegally (or legally, but wants it illegal for everyone less affluent). Thomas Dodd's fear of hippies and Carl Rowan's fear of skinny dipping teen agers come to mind.

[grasswire]

60. cheap shot

I believe Brock has more than paid his dues. And you have something wrong in your comment. You said Brock "switched sides after American Spectator fired him." I believe a more correct statement would be "American Spectator fired him after he switched sides."

From wikipedia:

July 1997, Brock published a confessional piece in Esquire magazine titled "Confessions of a Right-Wing Hit Man," in which he recanted much of what he said in his two best-known American Spectator articles and criticized his own reporting methods.[7][8] Discouraged at the reaction his Hillary Clinton biography received, he said, "I . . . want out. David Brock the Road Warrior of the Right is dead." Four months later, The American Spectator declined to renew his employment contract, under which he was being paid over $300,000 per year

Always seek to type the truth. Misrepresentation is for the wingnuts.

[gejohnston]

61. I'll have to find the book

thanks. I only know what I read before, and remember from that time. It is entirely possible that I had him wrongly pegged.

[grasswire]

62. No doubt, Brock was one of them for a time.

But when he was researching the book on Hillary, he found that allegations against the Clintons were untrue. He changed his ways, he apologized to them, he repudiated the lying liars. And he has worked since then to find truth and publish it, making himself a target of the powerful right.

[gejohnston]

69. IIRC,

part of it was also how his friends reacted when he came out. One thing that would help MM out would be if they actually offered evidence to support their version instead of links back to their own articles and "just take our words for it." My problem with them started when MM said La Pierre was lying or delusional when he mentioned the Wikileaks dump saying a lot of the guns going to the Mexican drug cartels were machine guns entering their southern border from Central America. Problem was, that was the same week I read the cables (McClatchey put the cables online and was reporting on that issue) that MM said did not exist. That is not to say I don't think Wayne isn't delusional or over the top most of the time, he was correct in that one specific instance.

Frankly, I really don't believe MM anymore than I do Fox. It is so absurd, it is almost a parody of CNN.

At the risk of being priggish, I believe in holding my side to a much higher standard than I would the right. If they are going to claim to be the truth tellers, then they should be the truth tellers regardless where the chips fall. Otherwise, it is propaganda. It is not that I am cynical, it is that as I grow older, the more I am finding that there are thinkers, and there are those who are in lockstep with whatever their ideological betters tell them to without researching or thinking about it on their own. That is never good because it leads to seeing only black and white in a Technicolor world. That is the antithesis of liberal, which is defined as generous and open minded.

One thing I noticed, those who defended Brock's assistant (if the story is true) are also those would tell the 99 percenter to call 911 or accuse them of being a right wing vigilante. Have you noticed that?

[SteveW]

104. What to you think of Brock's decision to hire an armed bodyguard? ...

Would it be "misrepresentation" to claim Fox never covers the truth, and is only a propaganda outlet? Not claiming you do, but this is the position some gun-controller/prohibitionists take when a source is cited from Fox, even as they cite sources from the Brady Campaign, a GOP-founded, GOP-lead organization.

I am not sure of Brock, either. Sometimes temperament still governs even as surface ideology changes. I wonder: Will he bring his acumen as a "Hit Man" to the side of the controller/banners?

[SteveW]

103. So, this account is not true? Would it be true if WaPo had covered it?

Dan, most of us are aware of the Bellesiles School of Academic Honesty. And we try to avoid attending it.

[frylock]

35. fucking lame. you can hate the NRA and still own and use guns ffs

symbolic unrec

[petronius]

36. Look at it more generally: how would you feel about a person who

strenuously advocated for stricter laws in a particular area, while at the same time willfully disregarding the laws that do exist?

(The caveat being for this specific case, of course, that the reports are strictly true.)

[ellisonz]

37. Spend a lot of time at the Fox News, eh?

[shadowrider]

44. No, but I have news tickers across the top of the screen

from Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ABC etc. I DID look at other sites to try and find this so I could use that link but the story
simply wasn't there.

Based on your premise, no one would know about this because it isn't printed anywhere else. Doesn't make it less true.

[ileus]

39. The 99%ers don't deserve firearm rights...

[petronius]

42. Of course not, it wouldn't be fair. They already outnumber the 1%

by nearly a hundred to one, and you think they should have guns too!? Hardly sporting, old chap...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

45. Anti-rights organizations and movements are often rife with hypocrisy. n/t

[ileus]

53. can't trust peasants with firearms...only pitchforks.

[PavePusher]

57. Hey!! You'll get my torch when you pry it from my ummmm, cold... dead... uuuhhhh..... n/t

[Remmah2]

59. Flame bait!

[PavePusher]

75. Flame, most certainly. Bait? Weeeeeeeeeeeelllllll......

[grasswire]

63. you can't find corroboration but believe the story is true?

Do you have some other sourcing? FOX is the only source at this time, AFIK.

Seitel is a paid commenter for FOX.

[gejohnston]

64. either way

it is possible. To your point
Does ideology A make shit up about ideology B? Yes
If true, is either one going to be honest if it does not serve their purpose? No
Does anyone outside of the ideological pissing match care? No. It is not a story to anyone else. True or not, you will not see it on CNN, BBC, or anyone else.
I get that Glock is a popular make, but it is not the only one. Glock seems to be the first pistol many think of. If the article claimed it was made by someone else, it would be more probable IMHO.

where did the information come from?

[grasswire]

65. You are wrong.

Or too cynical to recognize the difference between truth tellers and liars. FOX is devoted to lying. Media Matters is devoted to truth. This is not an ideological pissing match.

[gejohnston]

66. I was once naive

A couple of years ago, I thought the same thing. The problem with finding your own side being being less than accurate or truthful, or repeating something demonstrably false it kind of makes you cynical. I have found Media Matters being not entirely honest in the past, mostly on this issue.

[friendly_iconoclast]

70. We'll know it's true if Haydn Price-Morris *doesn't* sue The Daily Caller for libel.

Remember, they did flatly declare he habitually committed a felony (by illegally carrying a concealed handgun in DC).
If it's not true, TDC had best start budgeting for a rather large settlement...

[SteveW]

106. Gun-control is the Soma of most MSM, and that seems to include MM as well.

Please read The Great American Gun Debate (Kates & Kleck) for a primer in how MSM has handled issues around gun-control, both editorially and in its "news" stories.

I think it is unwise to base "truth" on an ideology, especially an ideological outlook (it is hardly a "movement&quot like gun-control. This is especially true when you consider that the modern gun-control outlook started with the 1968 General Gun Control Act (well after the Zombies and Mamas & Poppas had charted), and was pasted onto the Democrats as a "liberal" or "progressive" outlook. It is even more unwise considering the chief proponent of gun-control has been the GOP-founded, GOP-lead Brady Center.

I am surprised that MM has taken so much dough from Joyce. What an albatross.

[AzWorker]

67. I see some of the usual gun forum commenters are absent....

...how odd

[Simo 1939_1940]

68. They are MIA for the same reason that you won't find a story

like this reported on MSNBC or other MM -- they can't deal with the ever-present hypocrisy of the pro-restriction movement, and would prefer to stick their heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist.

[shadowrider]

71. I noticed that..strange, idin't it?

[burf]

72. Some have voiced their

take on the matter elsewhere.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117215240

[ileus]

74. They pick and choose according to agenda.

[beevul]

77. Unsurprisingly...

[Doctor_J]

78. I wish the NRA DUers could find some cites besides right-wing propaganda organs

I am surprised that fox lies, the moonie times, reason rag, and so forth are allowed here. There used to be a rule against posting from disreputable "sources"

[shadowrider]

79. I issue this challange to you, the same as I've offered it to others

Find a left-wing pro-gun site willing to print articles like this and it'll be used in a heartbeat.

The source doesn't automatically mean the information is false.

[DanTex]

81. It never occurs to you that there might be a reason that non-right-wing sites

don't publish stuff like this?

This story is based on an anonymous source quoted by dailycaller, another right-wing site which has openly admitted that it is going after MediaMatters. Is it accurate? Who knows? It could be, or it could be exaggerated, or even fabricated. Yes, a stopped clock is right twice a day, but the problem is that it's impossible to tell when that clock is right unless you have a functioning clock next to it. That's why a link to FOX which is not corroborated elsewhere isn't particularly useful.

What this story tells me is that FOX is out to smear Media Matters, and the fact that the pro-gunners are accepting this uncritically tells me they that factually accuracy and journalistic integrity play a second role in their mind to "scoring points" against a liberal supporter of gun control.

[shadowrider]

82. Out to smear? I think not. Out to show the hypocrisy of the anti-gun movement?

You betcha.

Guns for me but not for thee, and stuff.

[DanTex]

83. Your efforts at whitewashing a FOX smear campaign are amusing.

Whether it's the supposed "hypocrisy" of gun control or the "immorality" of the "homosexual agenda", FOX will be there exploiting the ignorance and fear of right-wingers, and they won't shy away from publishing half-truths or distortions to forward that agenda.

[shadowrider]

88. You think that's amusing

Wait till someone posts an article from fox that's PRO GUN CONTROL. Then is seems, the anti-gunners fully and honestly believe the source is reliable and trustworthy.

[ellisonz]

89. Do you see any of us linking to right-wing sources? n/t

[shadowrider]

91. All the time and I'm not the one doing it.

I see pro-gun people all the time getting slammed for posting articles from "questionable" sources. Take a walk around the threads. You'll find them.

Do you know of a left-wing site that's pro-gun? If you do, let me know and I'll use it as a source.

[ellisonz]

92. Maybe being pro-gun isn't left-wing?

Don't post right-wing garbage and you won't get slammed on it. Seriously, go to GD right now and post an article from the Weekly Standard. Do it or IMHO you're full of it.

[shadowrider]

93. So the info in the article is false, is that what you're saying?

Or you don't like the hypocrisy brought to light of day?

[ellisonz]

94. I think it's a stupid point...

...only a gun-drooling fool would think proves any sort of point about hypocrisy. Can you site any of us saying large sums of money shouldn't be protected or that the President shouldn't have armed protection? Cry me a river. C'mon, go post a right-wing link in GD. I dare you.

[Glaug-Eldare]

115. Why should large sums of private money be protected

more effectively than lives, homes, or small sums? Why not just insure it instead of killing over it?

[DanTex]

97. Like I said above...

This story is based on an anonymous source quoted by dailycaller, another right-wing site which has openly admitted that it is going after MediaMatters. Is it accurate? Who knows? It could be, or it could be exaggerated, or even fabricated. Yes, a stopped clock is right twice a day, but the problem is that it's impossible to tell when that clock is right unless you have a functioning clock next to it. That's why a link to FOX which is not corroborated elsewhere isn't particularly useful.

What this story tells me is that FOX is out to smear Media Matters, and the fact that the pro-gunners are accepting this uncritically tells me they that factually accuracy and journalistic integrity play a second role in their mind to "scoring points" against a liberal supporter of gun control.

[SteveW]

108. I think Eugene V. Debs thought it was. nt

[beevul]

98. Mhmm.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11723536

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117212676

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117214883

Say, who posted that first one?

[ellisonz]

99. I went to it from the latimes.com coverage...

...on the front-page, and besides, that's a local news affiliate. Do you understand the difference? Not the main beast. What is your opinion of Faux News? Do you think it's a generally legitimate news source? Do you regularly watch Faux News on the tube?

[beevul]

100. Why are you asking me?

"What is your opinion of Faux News? Do you think it's a generally legitimate news source? Do you regularly watch Faux News on the tube?"

Why are you asking me?

I didn't post those links.


You, and your antigun cohorts did.


How about you answering the questions you are asking. Or maybe posing them to others on your side of the issue who link to fox.


If fox is unacceptable, its unacceptable for everyone.

If its acceptable when you or your anti-gun buddies link to it, then its ok for everyone else too.

[SteveW]

107. It does occur. And Kates and Kleck have pretty much explained why...

MSM won't publish stories like this. Please read The Great American Gun Debate, and find within the story on why there are no stories.

[Doctor_J]

84. I don't have to. Every page of every issue of every one of these rags

is dedicated to destroying the president, all liberals, and the entire Dem party. What is difficult to grasp about that? The fact that you read these things, and then post them at a site called Democratic Underground is a pathetic right-wing mole attack.

[shadowrider]

90. The info is true.

If I posted an article from Fox stating Obama is president, would you deny it based on the source?

[beevul]

80. Do anti-gun DUers get an exemption?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11723536

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117212676

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117214883


Goose, gander, and all that.

[Doctor_J]

85. Nope. Back when we had unrec, I proudly unrec'd

every excerpt from every right-wing source, often without reading them. I also made sure that the OP knew why I unrec'd.

[oneshooter]

86. So the information from the article does not matter to you, only the rag that printed it.

Another version of "No true Scotsman".

[oneshooter]

96. So if it is not printed in HuffPo it never happened. No true Scotsman, again.

[SteveW]

109. And there you go, the essential truth after so many postings. nt

[ellisonz]

87. Don't hold your breathe...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

116. Big Deal

Seriously.

Big deal. Give me a break.

Believe it or not you can support liberal agenda, gun control, private security companies and the Second Amendment.

What makes any of that hypocritical??? The absurdity that you have to be on one side or the other? Let us know how that goes. You misread your opposition.

[gejohnston]

117. he was carrying in violation of DC law

that fact that he is against us "little people" carrying or defending ourselves even in our homes makes it hypocritical.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

118. Actually

No he wasn't.

DC always allowed for licensed armed private security.

[gejohnston]

119. if he is against me defending myself in my home

and MM has railed against the castle doctrine, he should not even have that. That is the difference between someone with principles from just another one percenter. He should have to live with Deputy Mayor Quander's outlook just like you do.

“The problem is, if you are armed, it escalates the situation. It is much better, in my opinion, to be scared, to be frightened, and even if you have to be, to be injured, but to walk away and survive. You’ll heal, and you can replace whatever was taken away.”

District of Columbia Deputy Mayor for Public Safety, Paul Quander

[fightthegoodfightnow]

120. Trying to Redirect?

Your post has NOTHING to do with this:

You: He was carrying in violation of DC law

Me: No he wasn't. DC always allowed for licensed armed private security.

[gejohnston]

121. that is assuming he was licensed.

AFAIK, the assistant had no such license. Or, the whole story might be a croc. Assuming it is true, and assuming the assistant was licensed. As a matter of principle Brock (did he ever apologize to Anita Hill for calling her "a little nutty and an little slutty?) should live by what he expects of you or I. If he doesn't think you or I should have a gun, he shouldn't have a gun or paid toter with a gun. Just like the Deputy Mayor, if he thinks it should you OK to be an injured victim, he should be "one of the people" in that regard too.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

122. Good Try

You: He was carrying in violation of DC law

Me: No he wasn't. DC always allowed for licensed armed private security.

NOW...you say...assuming he was licensed.

WHAT BULL.

You flat out said he was violating the law.

He was NOT. Retreat. You are WRONG on this.

Everything else you say is once again an attempt to redirect.

[gejohnston]

123. the origial article was that he was unlicensed and not a security type

just that he was the gopher. Either way, I stand by my "redirection".

[fightthegoodfightnow]

124. Not

Period.

[CTyankee]

125. Hmm, only Fox covered this? Hmm, must be one of them commie conspiracies...

Why don't you do a service to us poor benighted souls and research this a bit more. Then come back and tell me what you have found.

[gejohnston]

126. Nawwwwwwwwww

just another volley in the pissing match between the two. Nobody knows if it is true or not, and nobody cares either way.

[CTyankee]

135. Oh, I see...I guess...

or maybe not...

[villager]

127. Wow -- if this is the level of post from the proliferationists now, they *really* "got nothin'"

n/t

[gejohnston]

128. it's an old OP

[villager]

129. You're right -- I guess it's just getting new responses and thus, still in the "crawl"

Seeing its posting date, I guess it seems a tad less desperate, then...

[blm]

130. FOX sez: If you support sensible gun laws you aren't allowed to use a gun in a sensible way.

How is it that the RW propaganda machines get away with their ridiculous statements and straw men?

[struggle4progress]

134. MediaMatters is not a gun control group: MediaMatters tracks rightwing lies

David Brock finally just got sick and tired of rightwing lies and decided to expose some. The NRA is a key player in the rightwing noise machine, so MediaMatters regularly butts heads with the NRA over the rightwing lies they regularly tell. The NRA must be really desperate right now to be playing this stupid misrepresentation game

[gejohnston]

136. although often true

MM will do the same thing as a knee jerk even then the NRA, or whoever, is telling the truth.
He also switched after getting fired from American Spectator and his how his "friends" reacted when he caome out.