Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Paper releases names/addresses of gun permit holders.
A local New York newspaper is drawing the ire of its readers after publishing an interactive map that shows the names and addresses of thousands of residents who have handgun permits.
This is HILARIOUS. Who do you think will get robbed now? The Newspaper just painted a great big fat target on those who don't own guns.
Those homeowners might as well have a rob me sign now in their front yard as every thief in New York will have that handy dandy piece of info.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/25/new-york-newspaper-faces-backlash-after-publishing-map-gun-permit-holders/%20?test=latestnews#ixzz2G8Rvxfqs
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
And people just can't see why folks like me and organizations I support like the NRA are opposed to gun registration. The paper illustrates in a small way just what a government intent on disarming its population can do with the list....
ReplyDeleteI also think that every gun owner on that list should hang on to a copy so if someone should rob their home, steal the gun and later use it in a crime... the paper can be held liable...
ReplyDeleteThis is kind of an interesting comment and is along the lines of what I was thinking of. Now that this list has been posted, people who want a gun know where they can go look for one. I don't know why the paper did this.
DeleteThe Scott
ReplyDelete"And people just can't see why folks like me and organizations I support like the NRA are opposed to gun registration."
Why not do without Motor Vehicle licensing and Drivers licenses. Just so that you can go about with murderous weapons (cars and guns) and use them with impunity. Please spare a thought also for those (the majority, I believe) who want guns licensed at worst and completely outlawed at best. Believe me; something will occur sometime which will persuade you to modify your views.
Cheers from Aussie
King, where are motor vehicle licenses mentioned in our Bill of Rights?
DeleteLet's see, a government tyrant sends his goons to your home to disarm you and put you under arrest. You get in your car and run them over legally. Now that makes sense.
1773-2009 the Second amendment is non negotiable.
William my thanks for the response.
DeleteYou pose a good question but I feel it is conceived in the stygian darkness of a closed mind. I respond by suggesting that Motor cars were not invented when the Congress gave you the Bill of Rights!!. The Constitution also does not require your guns be licensed. Were the current gun laws legislated illegally?
The "tyrant" you fear is sent by the government, the existence of which, your Constitution makes not only possible, but necessary.
You have the right under your self same constitution to change the government and there is provision also for you to change the very constitution itself. Whatever is done or not done concerning gun control in America it appears to me that the “might is right” argument is going to be prosecuted by the vocal minority.
Cheers from Aussie
"You have the right under your self same constitution to change the government and there is provision also for you to change the very constitution itself."
DeleteAnd that right there is the very thing that the far far right is fighting against to the death; the ability of a majority to compromise and attempt to solve problems the forefathers never even dreamed of.
King, your equation of motor cars and firearms is an old saw based on licensing. Your labeling motor cars as murderous weapons leads me to ascertain that you also think of horses and mules as deadly predesessors. The legality of gun licensing is an argument for another evening. Suffice it to say our heavily regulated States and cities remain our most dangerous.
DeleteAs for a closed mind my response returns to the two different planes of freedom we reside in. I have been raised under our constitution. You, on the other hand, grew and matured under the faux shadow of constitutional monarchy. That in itself explains our differences.
1773-2009 Long live the queen.
King, wrong as usual in pushing the idea that the majority want gun control at least with respect to Americans. Please stick to topics that better suit your knowledge such as shit maybe... You are not an American, you do not think as an American.....
Delete"Please stick to topics that better suit your knowledge such as shit maybe"
DeleteSo Kingston, have you gotten a clear idea yet about what it means to be a conservative in America? Is this what you imagine the founding fathers had in mind?
It is more than just a "right" to bare arms it is our duty. FACT, we are a Constitutional Republic. We are not a Monarchy - thank goodness -. I would not even pretend that I "understand" the majority of a foreign land and try and discuss that foreign lands politics with its people. Then and try to assume that I knew the feedings and heart of the majority - no that would be rude as I would be completely out of my realm... yet King does just that.
DeleteHe is not an American and therefor will never understand our way of thinking. As far as you lefties SOBs - you are just ignorant tools being used by other ignorant and members of the fifth column.
It's our DUTY to bear arms? That's interesting. I always thought that have the right TO do something also gave the right to NOT do it if you so choose. But, I'm not going to get into a second amendment argument with you, I will concede now that you won't be convinced of anything different then what you believe.
DeleteAs for Kingston, that again is an interesting choice of words. Going back to the MW days, I have always found Kingston to be an interested student in our country and frequently expresses himself as quite an admirer. Though he may have an axe to grind regarding our view on guns in this country, there is no doubt that for the moment at least, there is a pretty strong current across multiple demographics to tighten up our gun laws. It's not anyone saying this is pulling it out of midair. I appreciate the careful wording to say you would never tell someone from another country how whacked the are. This avoids saying whether you would talk such smack behind their back as basically most of us here do about the rest of the world. To Kingstons credit, he says it to our faces, sorta, and makes a respectful attempt to describe his rationale.
We should be so lucky that more people in this country would adopt his way of doing things.
I don't think it's HILARIOUS at all. I wouldn't want my name and address published as part of any list in the paper. That's nuts.
ReplyDeleteThis is a severe privacy violation on the part of the paper and that has nothing to do with the gun debate.
For what it's worth, teri, I agree with your antipathy towards the publisher. Not a cool move at all.
DeleteYou, however, have no "right to privacy" for your information that's available to anyone as part of a public record.
In fact, I bet that most constitutional scholars would state that it's actually the newspaper that falls under the protection of the 1st Amendment in this particular case.
We will consider giving up our right to bear arms when journalists consider giving up their 1st amendment rights.
DeleteTit for tat, both ridiculous propositions for free men and women.
@DI-
DeletePlease re-read what I posted. I suggested neither.
Gotcha phunky, newspapers are clear, Common sense is not common.
DeletePfunky
DeleteThere is a big difference between having gun registration info available to those who want to go to the trouble of looking it up and having someone splash it all over the pages of a news paper---in an interactive format no less.
As we well know--editorial policy dictates what a paper choses to print. Since there isn't room for everything that happens, exists, could be talked about etc, a selection process takes place.
There were no interactive lists of people who signed up for food stamps for instance, although that also is probably public knowledge.
teri,
DeleteGood point, that last.
Jean
teri, we're not disagreeing. I think what the paper did was obnoxious and imflammatory - but because of the public nature of the info, it was not a violation of anyone's privacy rights.
DeleteAnd yes, if the paper wanted to publish a list of local food stamp recipients, it is within their rights to do so. I imagine that all it would take to obtain such a list is a simple Freedom Of Information request submitted to the correct government department.
Teri, that list would be a absolute bombshell.
Delete