View Full Version : NY paper publishes the names and addresses of weapons owners
Gents,
I wish to first apologize about the language, but ..... THIS IS FUCKING BULLSHIT !!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
December 23rd 2012 a New York Newspaper Printed the names and addresses of every Licensed Pistol Permit holder in two Counties and another County is being posted shortly! This is a massive privacy breach and the latest in a series of over the top emotional reactions to the latest shooting tragedy in Sandy Hook CT meant to intimidate the lawful and prey on peoples fears to exploit the gun grabbing agenda.
In an article title “The gun owner next door: What you don’t know about the weapons in your neighborhood” the paper linked to an interactive map titled: “Map: Where are the gun permits in your neighborhood?” where you can search neighborhoods to see who received a legal permit to own a hand gun license listed by name and address.
<snip>
Link with active map ....
http://amiglobalsecurity.com/breaking-ny-paper-publishes-gun-permit-holders-names-in-print-online/
If anyone of the above listed peoples weapons were to be stolen and then used in a crime, would the newspaper be considered an accomplish or would they fall back on their 1st amendment rights ???
Well - I think BS also.
But - I wonder just how it would work in the long term? Would the break in rate now become higher - or lower for the CC homes?
Statistics.
Destrier
12-24-2012, 06:18
Here in Western NY, all our neighbors are armed.
Well - I think BS also.
But - I wonder just how it would work in the long term? Would the break in rate now become higher - or lower for the CC homes?
Statistics.1. Why break into a home where you know the homeowner is armed?
2. Why not break into a home where you know the homeowner is unarmed?
Stay safe.
Well, some Gun Activists in that area could screen the list and see who from the local "newspaper/news" folks aren't on the list and put their names and addresses up on a billboard.
Streck-Fu
12-24-2012, 07:11
A Bloomington, IN newspaper did the same thing a few years ago and it was republished by the Indianapolis Star. Only they published the address of CCW holders. It cause quite a stink and they lost a lot readers because of it. Not that they had many readers to lose.....:rolleyes:
That was extreme BS as well.
Total BS, the local paper here in Iowa lists by county the new permit holders name and also renewels but no addresses, this might embolden them.
It might also be comforting for those who do not have permits to know if the guy next door has one. This is just the beginning.
ddoering
12-24-2012, 07:44
If they are trying to intimidate gun owners that is a strange way to go about it. Find out the editors home address and legally drive down there with your guns in plain sight and park in front of his house.
I really liked QP Pete's thought. Someone really should do that.
PedOncoDoc
12-24-2012, 08:12
1. Why break into a home where you know the homeowner is armed?
2. Why not break into a home where you know the homeowner is unarmed?
Stay safe.
Or (criminal logic here) - if someone owns a firearm and is not allowed to keep it on his/her person, why not wait around for them to leave their house and break in if you know you are likely to find/gain a firearm for your effort?
The paper would be an accessory to burglary IMHO.
:mad:
medic&commo
12-24-2012, 09:52
Or (criminal logic here) - if someone owns a firearm and is not allowed to keep it on his/her person, why not wait around for them to leave their house and break in if you know you are likely to find/gain a firearm for your effort?
The paper would be an accessory to burglary IMHO.
:mad:
That happened to me - someone waited until my wife & I left for work, broke in & stole all my firearms & electronics.
They were watching, waiting for the opportunity.
Sucks, because I lost a Serbu BFG50 & Supermatch M1A, among others.
m&c
Tacky - but it is a matter of "public" record.
Richard :munchin
The Reaper
12-24-2012, 10:31
Tacky - but it is a matter of "public" record.
Richard :munchin
How about a list of people who are HIV positive?
Could that be printed?
TR
Badger52
12-24-2012, 12:10
Seems there was an instance awhile back in OH (?) of an abuse victim who'd relocated, secured a permit, and estranged beater tracked her down via such an article. As the Dixie Chicks said, he "marched right through that restraining order and put her in intensive care." (Don't know if his name was Earl or not.)
Just because you can [publish], doesn't mean you should.*
* WI allows only release of statistics to other than LE (and then when in the course of an active investigation); was specifically made a part of the law here to prevent just this sort of krap.
Paragrouper
12-24-2012, 12:16
Tacky - but it is a matter of "public" record.
Richard :munchin
Actually, it's dependant on the State. You cannot publish this information in Texas.
In any case, I'm not a fan. I believe the 'concealed' aspect of carrying should remain concealed by both the State and the licensee. Outing licensees places unwarranted scrutiny on otherwise law abiding people and may impact how others behave when they are present. Concealment provides options; when or if intervene in a given situation and a potential tactical advantage if you do (surprise! it's my favorite). Concealment works best when both the firearm and the knowledge that the person is carrying a firearm remain hidden.
swatsurgeon
12-24-2012, 12:18
Recall this happened in VA about 5-6 years ago.....Attorney General got involved and removed the possibility of it happening again, only law enforcement needs to know who has a permit or a weapon. The writer who published the list had a list of threats made to him from people that had restraining orders out and were armed for personal protection and felt it was an invasion of privacy and violated parts of the court order intending to keep them "safe' from their predator. I think IIRC, someone actually sued the writer....don't quote me on that one.
The element of surprise help when armed since hopefully the bad guy doesn't know you have a weapon until they are starring at the working end of it....smile for the flash :D:eek:
ss
State police close list of gun permits
The attorney general said the list contained sensitive information.
By Laurence Hammack
981-3239
Related
Document
Read the complete opinion from Attorney General Bob McDonnell
An editorial writer's botched attempt to highlight an open record -- the list of Virginians licensed to carry a concealed handgun -- resulted Friday in the record being closed.
Acting on the advice of Attorney General Bob McDonnell, the Virginia State Police said they will no longer release the information under the state's open records law.
The issue of hidden handguns, who gets to carry them and whether their names and addresses should be publicized hit a flash point last month when Roanoke Times editorial writer Christian Trejbal used his column to encourage readers to check up on who in their community was "packing heat."
The column carried a link to a database, obtained by the newspaper under the Freedom of Information Act and published on its Web site, that included the identities of more than 135,000 state residents licensed to carry concealed handguns.
Gun owners and their supporters were outraged, and the newspaper quickly pulled the database after receiving hundreds of complaints.
But the controversy continued. With some lawmakers pledging to introduce bills next year to make the list of concealed handgun permit holders private, Del. Dave Nutter, R-Christiansburg, decided to ask for guidance from the attorney general.
In a three-page opinion released Friday, McDonnell wrote that state police have "discretionary authority" to release the list -- but that doesn't necessarily mean they should.
McDonnell raised two concerns about making the information public: First, the list includes the names of crime victims and witnesses that should be withheld from public view for safety reasons.
A second and broader reading of the law by McDonnell is that the entire list should be off-limits to the public because the data is compiled only for use by police in their investigations.
State police have "the responsibility to refrain from releasing sensitive personal information when the interests of public safety demand discretion," McDonnell wrote.
"Further, it is my opinion that the express language [of Virginia state law] limits the use of concealed carry permit information to law enforcement personnel for investigative purposes."
Because McDonnell acknowledged that police have "discretionary authority," some observers -- including Nutter -- had speculated the opinion would give them enough wiggle room to continue releasing a redacted list.
But state police spokeswoman Corinne Geller said Friday that acting on the attorney general's advice, the agency will no longer release the information, which over the past two years was the subject of 17 FOIA requests by the news media, political organizations and gun-rights groups.
Because crime victims and witnesses are not identified as such in the list of concealed handgun permit holders, there's no way for police to redact their names from the database, Geller said.
McDonnell's opinion settles the issue only for the short term; the General Assembly is expected to take up the issue next year following a study by the state's Freedom of Information Advisory Council.
"I think this opinion will serve as a foundation for future discussion," Nutter said.
Although he said it was too early to talk about specific legislation, Nutter said he could envision a solution in which citizens could still look up information on individual gun owners at their local courthouse, while the statewide list compiled by the state could be off-limits to everyone except law enforcement.
That could draw opposition from both open-record advocates such as newspapers and gun-rights groups, who also rely on the list to target potential members or citizens interested in gun-related legislation.
"There's going to be push-back from all different sides," Nutter said.
Meanwhile, First Amendment advocates voiced concerns Friday that removing information from the public domain simply because it might contain sensitive personal information could cause more confusion than clarity and affect more records than just the list of concealed handgun carriers.
"We've got to be very careful that the law is clear, and bureaucrats aren't left scratching their heads as to what is sensitive personal information and what isn't," said Frosty Landon, head of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government.
"The attorney general is supportive of open government and I'm sure he will work with everybody else to get this clarified by statute, so it doesn't have to be an issue for interpretation."
In an editorial published two weeks after the controversy began, The Roanoke Times admitted its editorial department made mistakes in deciding to publish the information. Those mistakes included not discussing in greater detail the possible effect on crime victims and not having a more compelling public purpose -- beyond illustrating how the Freedom of Information Act works -- for posting the database.
Asked about Friday's decision by the state police to restrict the information, newspaper President and Publisher Debbie Meade released a written statement.
"As a media company, it always concerns us when the availability of information is restricted," Meade said. "However, we recognize and respect the rights of the Virginia State Police to exercise discretion in handling their responsibilities."
Tacky - but it is a matter of "public" record.
Richard :munchin
So are the names of rape and domestic abuse victims, and those who apply for restraining orders.
Well, well, well .... two can play at this game.
Here is the home address and phone number of the writer of the article that posted all the CCW holders in eastern NY.
Also on the list are the president of the paper, the editors and several other "high ranking" folks associated with this rag.
Here is the list. .....
addresses and phone number of NY Journal "columnist" Dwight R. Worley who published all of the HOME ADDRESSES of Law Abiding Conceal Carry Gun Owners of the entire state of NY as well as the rest of the marxist swine at The Journal:
Dwight R Worley
23006 139 Ave
Springfield Gardens, NY 11413
But you might want to call him first to let him know you’ll be dropping in: (718) 527-0832
and here are the rest of the red diaper doper babies at
The Journal:
Journal News President:
---Janet Hasson, 3 Gate House Lane Mamaroneck, NY 10534 (914) 694.5204
Editors:
---Cyndee Royle, 1133 Westchester Ave., Suite N110, White Plains, NY 10604, 914-694-9300
--Nancy Cutler 9 Woodwind Ln, Spring Valley, NY. (845) 354 3485
Parent company of The Journal News Gannett
-----CEO Gracia C Martore 728 Springvale Rd Great Falls, VA 22066 (703) 759 5954
The reporter on the story is:
--Dwight R Worley 23006 139 Ave Springfield Gardens, NY 11413 (718) 527 0832
Peregrino
12-26-2012, 12:00
NC recently had its own similar drama play out. The news outlet in question is in-your-face liberal and completely unapologetic about the article or their intentions WRT publishing the information. Backlash outside the democratic bastions was predictable and (in some entertaining cases) vitriolic.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/07/25/outrageous-charlotte-cbs-affiliate-station-wral-publishes-searchable-d
Team Sergeant
12-26-2012, 13:40
Take a closer look at the issue. The real reason these "liberal, left-wing socialists" are publishing the CCW owners names and addresses has absolutely nothing to do with "news". It does however have everything to do with the current socialist movement in this country.
Remember that saying that "in any successful revolution you must first kill all the lawyers"? I think we can expound on that..... When do we stop calling them "reporters" and call them what they really are, "activists".
Take a closer look at the issue. The real reason these "liberal, left-wing socialists" are publishing the CCW owners names and addresses has absolutely nothing to do with "news". It does however have everything to do with the current socialist movement in this country.
Remember that saying that "in any successful revolution you must first kill all the lawyers"? I think we can expound on that..... When do we stop calling them "reporters" and call them what they really are, "activists".
That's an easy one. "NOW" because that's what the majority of them are. :D
Dozer523
12-26-2012, 18:34
How about a list of people who are HIV positive?
Could that be printed?
TRGun ownership is both a choice and a right. Being HIV positive is neither.
Peregrino
12-26-2012, 18:56
Gun ownership is both a choice and a right. Being HIV positive is neither.
Then how about publishing the names of every woman who receives an abortion? That appears to meet your test.
Then how about publishing the names of every woman who receives an abortion? That appears to meet your test.:eek::munchin
Dozer523
12-26-2012, 22:00
I wasn't quite finished with the thought. Sorry.
Posting the names of the gun owners is not going to be helpful. For one thing as Team Sergeant points out it isn't news. It a little sensational; it demonizes innocent people; it adds to the us vs them. In my opinion that isn't going to help.
As I've said and it has been pointed out, I'm not a gun owner. But I have kids and I am a teacher. I'm also a big fan of the a Bill of Rights -- my favorite being the Fourth. But to have the Fourth I have to support the Second. So I do, but as there are certain restrictions placed on ... Well, all the other Amendments, I can't see why #2 is the exception. I hear (over and over and over) that the Second protects all the others but I don't buy that. Voting and the orderly transfer of power is what protects our way of life. And never has a weapon of any kind been required to ensure "the will of the people".
My posts have never advocated taking anyone's guns. Near universal gun ownership is what we do. Does it always make sense? Not always to me -- to me someone owning a civilian-ized gun that looks like, shoots nearly like, what Soldiers are carrying against the Taliban makes no sense. To me. In America where there is no enemy planning, trying to kill me. I know there will be some who disagree.
My initial point was what would gun owners be willing to change based on a dangerous weapon getting into the wrong hands and killing children? Or Firemen? I suggested, initially a requirement to store them more safely. Oh well. I got my answer from this forum. Generally, not willing to change anything if it effects anyone's freedom to have what they want, where they want when they want. Most astonishing, to me, is the solution offered is make guns more available and in an incredibly intrusive way, in schools. And then obviously, in churches (the Troy, IL shooting -- I see that church from my sons school)' in malls (OR). Everywhere, I guess.
There are 315 million citizens in America plus or minus. There are 300 Million guns +/- ? It's not one for one though. Gun owners are not the majority by a long way. The majority (gun owners are not the majority, work with me here) of Americans fall into two groups -- guns are bad. And, -- I don't care. I don't care for the "banning" group cuz I like warrants and I like my door.
I think the "don't care" groups is starting to care now. I think they are not going to accept dead children as a cost of the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights. If for no other reason that no other amendment exacts that price. They are not going to accept comparisons to auto fatalities (we use cars and there are many things actively trying to reduce the death toll on the highway . . . Without going back to 55mph, which really did work) or fatalities caUsed by smoking (tobacco is practically taxed to death) or other comparisons because guns are for killing. Period. We want the killing to stop.
I offered an idea of a solution -- safer storage. I don't care. I haven't got a gun. But I don't want them to take your gun cuz I don't want someone else making me open my door without a warrant. There are certain cases where warrant less searches are allowed.
There are certain cases where one is not allowed to say everything they want
There are cases where religious practices are illegal.
There is no reason for the order of the Amendment. So why is #2 sacrosanct?
Down to 3% on the iPad.
Peregrino
12-26-2012, 22:45
Your proposed solution was in place in CT. http://www.safekids.org/in-your-area/safety-laws/child-access-prevention-law-connecticut.html It didn't prevent the tragedy. If you want a pretty decent rundown on safe storage from a gun-control advocate's viewpoint, check out the following: http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/mcclurg3.htm. As I posted in the other thread - EVERYTHING you are asking for (taking you at your word that that does not include an outright ban) has already been enacted in one form or another. None of it was sufficient to prevent a madman from murdering his own mother (everybody forgets the first victim - of vilifies her) and then accessing the remainder of her firearms and commiting his heinous attrocity.
Given that you do not own firearms and express a disinterest in ever possessing any, I contend that you lack perspective to understand the attitudes of those of us who do - and who have endured decades of continual erosion of our rights in the search for a panacea (no other word fits as well) that will divert attention from the societal failings that are the root causes of these tragedies.
Constant
12-26-2012, 22:51
-- to me someone owning a civilian-ized gun that looks like, shoots nearly like, what Soldiers are carrying against the Taliban makes no sense.
.
I initially bought my bushmaster xm-15 (mil/police only version) in 2006. I was informed I would be deploying in 2007. I'm in the Air Force and we don't have a lot of training with any weapon if we are not security forces. So I bought what at the time I thought would be close to what I'd be using. Minus the red dot the function and shooting was the same. I spent the money so I would be more prepared and comfortable with my weapon. No CST training or anything special. I ended up using my weapon and am glad I spent the extra effort on my own. In 2009 and this year the Army taught me. But for my own sake again I'm glad that I practiced on my own prior to my deployments.
Given that you do not own firearms and express a disinterest in ever possessing any, I contend that you lack perspective to understand the attitudes of those of us who do - and who have endured decades of continual erosion of our rights in the search for a panacea (no other word fits as well) that will divert attention from the societal failings that are the root causes of these tragedies.If one applies the reasoning of this POV to other controversial issues, should the POV of a woman who has had to deal with an unwanted pregnancy because she was raped carry extra weight in a discussion about abortion?
Similarly, many members of minorities groups can say they've "endured decades of continual erosion of their rights" in order to solve this problem or that one. Do their voices carry extra weight when they talk about other national tragedies?
Noah Werka
12-27-2012, 15:32
Well, some Gun Activists in that area could screen the list and see who from the local "newspaper/news" folks aren't on the list and put their names and addresses up on a billboard.
I really liked QP Pete's thought. Someone really should do that.
They did:
Lookie here (http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/26/journalists-addresses-posted-google-maps-gun/?icid=maing-grid7|maing9|dl17|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D249935)
Noah W
Given that you do not own firearms and express a disinterest in ever possessing any, I contend that you lack perspective to understand the attitudes of those of us who do .
If one applies the reasoning of this POV to other controversial issues, should the POV of a woman who has had to deal with an unwanted pregnancy because she was raped carry extra weight in a discussion about abortion?
Having never had a uterus, we have been told, and generally accepted that the life/death decisions are left to those who do. We have gone as far as legally accepting that the contents are only a fetus, should the owner choose to treat it as such, and that they constitute a child should societal support be requested. Not so big a stretch.
My initial point was what would gun owners be willing to change based on a dangerous weapon getting into the wrong hands and killing children? Or Firemen?
I'd accept the same changes that will be made to the 1st Amendment that would prevent the widespread violence and death created by Twitter and YouTube in the Middle East--none. Almost anything can be used be used for evil purposes, and I'm not into tossing the baby out with the bathwater (because that would be violence against a child, too--maybe we should outlaw baths.).
Most astonishing, to me, is the solution offered is make guns more available and in an incredibly intrusive way, in schools. And then obviously, in churches (the Troy, IL shooting -- I see that church from my sons school)' in malls (OR). Everywhere, I guess.
Because responsible gun owners in those places have prevented/mitigated violence--New Life Church, CO and Clackamas Town Center, OR to name two recent examples.
...because guns are for killing. Period. We want the killing to stop.
Wow, the short-sightedness of that statement astounds me. Never heard of IPSC, IDPA, 3-gun, trap & skeet, modern pentathalon, National Match, etc.? Both my boys are pretty proficient in using both a rifle and pistol to accurately punch holes in paper, and we all really enjoy those experiences; neither has ever killed anything with a firearm. I've personally taught dozens of Boy Scouts to shoot a .22 rifle, and except for a few whose dads have taken them hunting, most haven't ever killed anything with a firearm. There are plenty of sporting and recreational applications for firearms, although once again the Constitution doesn't require a sporting use to guarantee the individual the right to own a firearm (so says SCOTUS in Miller and Heller).
There are certain cases where one is not allowed to say everything they want
There are cases where religious practices are illegal.
The federal limits on the 1st Amendment are very, very tightly scoped, much like requiring background checks on all retail gun purchases and age restrictions on ownership. States can and do add restrictions on both the 1A and 2A as they see fit, although 2A restrictions tend to be far more numerous.
I believe (but could very well be wrong) that the only restrictions on religious practices are those that, in their regular practice, violate other, existing federal laws (use of controlled substances, directly kill or harm others) . Last I checked, using a gun to kill or harm someone other than in specific self-defense situations is already illegal.
Is it a possibility that this infighting and debate among the public was created to make the "Gun Control" thing easier to justify by the gov. in the future?:munchin
The media is a huge tool, as we all know.
AngelsSix
12-31-2012, 07:52
Is it a possibility that this infighting and debate among the public was created to make the "Gun Control" thing easier to justify by the gov. in the future?:munchin
The media is a bunch of huge tools, as we all know.
Fixed it for ya!:D
Dozer523
12-31-2012, 12:00
Wow, the short-sightedness of that statement astounds me. Never heard of IPSC, IDPA, 3-gun, trap & skeet, modern pentathalon, National Match, etc.? Both my boys are pretty proficient in using both a rifle and pistol to accurately punch holes in paper, and we all really enjoy those experiences; neither has ever killed anything with a firearm. I've personally taught dozens of Boy Scouts to shoot a .22 rifle, and except for a few whose dads have taken them hunting, most haven't ever killed anything with a firearm. There are plenty of sporting and recreational applications for firearms, although once again the Constitution doesn't require a sporting use to guarantee the individual the right to own a firearm (so says SCOTUS in Miller and Heller)..
Why, yes. I have heard of those sport application for guns. Participated in skeet. I've never competed in a marksmanship competition but enjoy practicing marksmanship for fun and military proficiency. As a skier, I really admire biathlon,too. That is awesome about your sons. BTW thanks we have succeeded at Pinewood Derby based on your advice and your sons' experience. I earned the shooting merit badge and Little Dude probably will too after he moves up.
There are plenty of sporting applications to driving too, demolishion derby for example. But there is where I part company from your model. Demolishion derby came after cars were developed for the primary purpose of transportation.
Guns were developed for the primary purpose of putting holes in other people. Other Soldiers specifically. Then it was noted that guns did a good job of putting holes in good things to eat. And as with guns designed to kill (not just put holes in) soldiers hunting guns got more and more advanced. Look up a "punt gun" now that is a level of unsportsmanlike-like efficiency!
You are absolutely right that the Second Amendment does not distinguish a sporting right. And your reading it here under my signature -- I do not believe the Founders were concerned about putting food of the table or bragging rights. They were concerned about defense. I believe the defense of the big frontier in the absence of a big standing force. I also believed they were very comfortable with the home and personal defense idea. (How about a little credit here? I'm agreeing with two out of three to the gun lobby arguments -- I'm not sold that they intended guns to be used against the new government . . . Themselves)
My point has never been guns should be banned.
My point is this: Gun possession argument seems to fall into four categories. The pry my gun from my cold dead fingers vs the ban all guns gang. Neither are the majority. Together they do not form a majority. In between there are people like me who do not own guns. But do live in society thus have a stake in the conversation and do not agree with an arguement that the only way to curb gun viollence is to have so many guns in society that no one would ever dare display one in public for fear of being disarmed or blasted to pieces by the law-abiding citizens around them. I think the lines of gun argument are growing less fuzzy for this middle group. I think this middle group (which is a majority) are growing less tolerant of those advocating maximum armament.
My question is could there be a group of gun owners who would accept and advocate mandated by law safety precautions to prevent guns getting into the hands of crazy people. Just crazy people. Initially, I thought maybe purchase of a gun requires purchase of an effective security system. This assumes that law abiding legal purchasers would use these security devices. Just as it is assumed that law abiding legal car drivers adhere to driving regulations. I know not all do but a significant number do that we all feel relatively safe on the road.
( -- unless its my oldest boy who totaled my SUV*** two nights ago. Crawled out the window when the car finally stopped and the car fell over on it's side. Not a scratch on him. If I ever allow him to drive I will begin a thread here announcing the date and place radius and a picture of the car he will be in. It is more then required but As a licensed owner i feel some obligation to the general public to go a little beyond the minimum requirements.
*** my very well maintained, paid off SUV with 256,500 miles making it practically book value worthless, that I was planning on driving for at least another 2 years. He managedd to bang up everyside but the front including sheering off BOTH rear view mirrors (even the Sherriff was impressed). From walking the "accident" i mean "negligence" scene, it must have been one hell of a ride . . .He admits to 55 mph that was before I pointed out it was a 25 mph zone rural road. There was a long sideways slide into a mailbox, then a counter clockwise 180 spin that included about 15 feet of airtime as it went into the culvert backwards wrapped up by the tipping over on its side and the driver door window exploding. (No Airbags deployed) At each point of contact outside the car he seemed to be in exactly the best orientation. 45 days since his licensing.
[QUOTE=Dozer523;480650] ( -- unless its my oldest boy who totaled my SUV*** two nights ago. Crawled out the window when the car finally stopped and fell over. without a scratch on him. If I ever allow him to drive I will begin a thread here announcing the date and place radius and a picture of the car he will be in. /QUOTE]
We'll need a threat analysis along with that, please. :D
Thank God he didn't get hurt.
Dozer523
12-31-2012, 12:08
[QUOTE=Dozer523;480650] ( -- unless its my oldest boy who totaled my SUV*** two nights ago. Crawled out the window when the car finally stopped and fell over. without a scratch on him. If I ever allow him to drive I will begin a thread here announcing the date and place radius and a picture of the car he will be in. /QUOTE]
We'll need a threat analysis along with that, please. :D
Thank God he didn't get hurt.thank you bro, I appreciate that.
( -- unless its my oldest boy who totaled my SUV*** two nights ago. Crawled out the window when the car finally stopped and the car fell over on it's side. Not a scratch on him.
Glad to hear he was able to walk away from that scene.
Badger52
12-31-2012, 12:43
I'm not sold that they [the founders] intended guns to be used against the new government . . . ThemselvesI respectfully disagree. Guns were already being used against, and by, the colonists well before the Constitution was ratified. The founders knew full well what was involved in throwing off the shackles of an oppressive government, having just done that, when it fails to accede to the source of its power (the governed). I think to assume otherwise would be selling the founders short.
The despot wants the monopoly of force.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't 'grant' anything, it merely codifies a natural right, that of self-defense, whether it be in defense of one's home, or against an oppressor.
GratefulCitizen
12-31-2012, 13:20
My point is this: Gun possession argument seems to fall into four categories. The pry my gun from my cold dead fingers vs the ban all guns gang. Neither are the majority. Together they do not form a majority. In between there are people like me who do not own guns. But do live in society thus have a stake in the conversation and do not agree with an arguement that the only way to curb gun viollence is to have so many guns in society that no one would ever dare display one in public for fear of being disarmed or blasted to pieces by the law-abiding citizens around them. I think the lines of gun argument are growing less fuzzy for this middle group. I think this middle group (which is a majority) are growing less tolerant of those advocating maximum armament.
My question is could there be a group of gun owners who would accept and advocate mandated by law safety precautions to prevent guns getting into the hands of crazy people. Just crazy people. Initially, I thought maybe purchase of a gun requires purchase of an effective security system. This assumes that law abiding legal purchasers would use these security devices. Just as it is assumed that law abiding legal car drivers adhere to driving regulations. I know not all do but a significant number do that we all feel relatively safe on the road.
What does "the majority" have to do with an individual right?
Rights are not granted by majorities.
That being said, I do recognize that order is necessary in society.
It is doubtful that anyone possesses the wisdom to apply a good one-size-fits-all solution.
The needs of a metropolitan area with a particular culture are not the same as those of a rural area with a different culture.
Here in Arizona I've bought both a concealable handgun and a shotgun with a high-capacity magazine in a matter of minutes, at a gas station, with no background check.
It would be perfectly legal here to conceal that shotgun under a trenchcoat, with no permit necessary.
Compare the problems in Arizona to those of Chicago.
Growing up in western Colorado, guns were no big deal.
On my 16th birthday, finally having a driver's license, my friend and I could finally go shooting on our own.
My father wasn't the least bit concerned about our handling the guns safely.
He was worried about me handling the truck safely.
He was correct.
We shot up the countryside without incident but I nearly rolled the truck while goofing off on an icy road.
************
Glad to hear that your boy is safe.
Dozer523
12-31-2012, 14:42
I respectfully disagree. Thats what keep Vegas in business. Still i can't seethe Founder pointing a gun at their own heads. but . . .
Glad to hear he was able to walk away from that scene. Thank you.Glad to hear that your boy is safe. Thank you.
ddoering
12-31-2012, 14:56
Thats what keep Vegas in business. Still i can't seethe Founder pointing a gun at their own heads. but . . .
Thank you. Thank you.
I don't think they were pointing it at their own head. Perhaps they were thinking long term, of those who would come later. Its like an insurance policy. They knew that power corrupts.
Too much seethe-ing going on around here. Take a chill pill folks.
Fixed it for ya!:D
Thanks for that-so sad but so true.
Dozer, very glad to hear your boy is ok. Sad to hear about the SUV, but hopefully this becomes a "freebie" scared-straight moment for your son (I know if I were in your shoes, I'd have the scared part well covered, at least at the first report of the accident). I learned a similar lesson as a young, invincible LT in Germany, running nearly bald tires too fast through a rain-slicked turn. Other than a totaled MB190 and a severely sprained ego, I got REALLY lucky, and have never been a cheapskate on tires or pushed the limits on a rain or ice slick corner since.
I get your point on the original intent of guns, but there are plenty of things out there that are now being used for something far beyond their original design intent, even if its primarily entertainment (take the Internet, for example).
The problem with mandating "common sense, responsible" actions is that for every one of you, there is a crowd of gun-haters that will jump at the possibility of perverting "common sense" into an opportunity to make the scary guns go away. Then, to use a worn but worthy phrase, only those that will break the law anyhow will break the law and have a gun. Skeptical? What about Breivik in Norway? Bird in England? Xiang in Australia? Kretschmer in Germany? Gill in Canada? Think hi-cap mags are the issue? IIRC, Whitman used a shotgun and a Remington 700 in a hunting caliber to kill or injure most of his 40-some odd victims. Final reports are forthcoming, but I've read that Lanza freely reloaded his pistols multiple times, as there was no effective resistance against him, as did Cho at VA Tech. No need for a true hi-cap mag when you can slap in a fresh mag whenever you want.
Despite the angst and turmoil nuclear MAD policy caused from the 40s to the 80s, it's tough to argue that it didn't work--I don't recall any nukes detonated outside of tests or accidents during those 40 years (I stand by for a well-written and properly footnoted rebuke from Sig) . Maybe small arms MAD, despite the tension it can create, isn't such a bad solution.
In between there are people like me who do not own guns. But do live in society thus have a stake in the conversation and do not agree with an arguement that the only way to curb gun viollence is to have so many guns in society that no one would ever dare display one in public for fear of being disarmed or blasted to pieces by the law-abiding citizens around them. I think the lines of gun argument are growing less fuzzy for this middle group. I think this middle group (which is a majority) are growing less tolerant of those advocating maximum armament.
QP Dozer - I appreciate your stance and I appreciate the fact that you took the time to type out your reasoning behind it. I, coming from the "more people should have guns so that bad guys would be afraid of getting blown to smithereens" camp, have to wonder what your proposal for a general solution to incidents such as the recent CT event and the previous theater in CO shooting would be, if not for an armed populace. Maybe its due to my lack of ability to think outside the box, but I cannot imagine a solution involving any more social regulation or increased police presence, as neither of these have worked in their current form.
My question is could there be a group of gun owners who would accept and advocate mandated by law safety precautions to prevent guns getting into the hands of crazy people. Just crazy people.
You highlight an interesting point here. One I have yet to see mentioned anywhere. While I'm not privy to exactly what happens during a background check pursuant to purchasing a firearm, the CT shooting involved firearms purchase by the boys mother. I have yet to see if she kept them secured in any fashion, regardless, the boy got them. This is not the fault of society, or due to the lack of enough laws, nor due to a failure in the mental health system, as it were. In my mind, it is a failure of a legal gun owner to properly secure her firearms from her mentally deranged child. It is the mothers responsibility, and the boys responsibility. It seems that since they are both dead, we (in general) have turned our thirst for vengeance and quest for answers on the NRA and gun owners.
I would imagine that more people get killed by motorist every year, more people killed by drunk drivers every year than those killed by guns. Why are we not up in arms about alcohol or cars? I think this is why us gun believers are so up in arms over the attempt to take them away, because we know that they are not the cause, nor is eliminating them the solution for random acts of violence.
P.S. Glad to hear your son is ok. Is a 10 speed his next vehicle? :)
ZonieDiver
01-01-2013, 21:02
Too much seethe-ing going on around here. Take a chill pill folks.
Chill pill taken! Ah.... that's better.:cool:
Glad your son's okay, Dozer. I hope it was a lesson well-learned, and one that sticks with him.
The Journal News is Armed and Dangerous (http://www.rocklandtimes.com/2013/01/01/the-journal-news-is-armed-and-dangerous/)
Guns are good for the goose but NOT for the gander.
A Clarkstown police report issued on December 28, 2012, confirmed that The Journal News has hired armed security guards from New City-based RGA Investigations and that they are manning the newspaper’s Rockland County headquarters at 1 Crosfield Ave., West Nyack, through at least tomorrow, Wednesday, January 2, 2013.
Badger52
01-02-2013, 13:38
Guns are good for the goose but NOT for the gander.
It is not clear whether the negative reaction has threatened the Journal News’ true popularity as a news source. As an anecdotal piece of evidence, the Rockland County Times confirms receiving an influx of new subscribers who stated they cancelled their subscription to the Journal News due to the gun story.
Is this a great country, or what?
Is this a great country, or what?
It can be at times.
Team Sergeant
01-02-2013, 18:34
LOL, they hired armed guards to "protect" the activists that worked on the story. LOL
Hypocrites.......
Gannett owns armytimes don't they? Maybe this boycott should be a whole lot bigger.
Gunfight: Newspaper's decision to out firearms owners sparks ongoing battle
Published January 02, 2013
FoxNews.com
Now it is the advertisers and readers of a New York newspaper who are caught in the crossfire, after its controversial decision to publish the names and addresses of gun owners in its community.
The initial story by the Westchester Journal News on Dec. 22 prompted a bitter backlash by gun advocates, who published the names and addresses of some of the newspaper’s staff. Since then, supporters and critics of the newspaper's controversial stand have been taking potshots at each other in a near-daily exchange that has drawn national attention.
“The data posted also includes active and retired police officers, judges, battered and stalked individuals, FBI agents, and more," the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association said in a release that marked the latest escalation. "The Journal News has made no credible case, nor offered any valid reason, for releasing the data, and it serves no investigative or journalistic purpose. It merely invites harassment and burglary.”
The association is calling for a possible boycott of the Gannett-owned newspaper's national advertisers. But the paper isn't just worried about suffering economic harm. On Dec. 28, it began posting armed guards outside one of its offices, according to local police, shortly after a blogger published the names and home addresses of the 50 journalists who worked on the interactive map showing who owned legally-registered guns.
And the battle shows no signs of subsiding. Hackers claim to have broken into the Journal News' online subscriber database and say they're circulating passwords and user information for 10,000 account holders. They have also made online threats to publish the home addresses and phone numbers of executives at the newspaper’s major advertisers.
One New York lawmaker said he plans to introduce legislation making it illegal to obtain gun permit holders’ information through Freedom of Information Act requests, which is how the Journal News obtained the permit holders’ information used to create their controversial online database.
“The Journal News has placed the lives of these folks at risk by creating a virtual shopping list for criminals and nut jobs,” said Republican State Sen. Greg Ball, in announcing his intent.
There is one apparent beneficiary of all the controversy: The paper's competitor, the Rockland County Times, claimed in an article to have seen an "influx of new subscribers who stated they canceled their subscription to the Journal News due to the gun story.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/02/newspaper-decision-to-out-gun-owners-sparks-all-out-battle/#ixzz2GrrWfIFd
And there is always this to consider...
Richard :munchin
The Reaper
01-02-2013, 20:24
And there is always this to consider...
Richard :munchin
Pretty soon, many of us could be criminals, by virtue of proposed legislation.
TR
BigJimCalhoun
01-02-2013, 21:10
And the battle shows no signs of subsiding. Hackers claim to have broken into the Journal News' online subscriber database and say they're circulating passwords and user information for 10,000 account holders. They have also made online threats to publish the home addresses and phone numbers of executives at the newspaper’s major advertisers.
This can't be good for the newspaper.
Or this
http://exposegannett.wordpress.com/
ddoering
01-03-2013, 08:14
My mom always said that when you point a finger at others you have several pointing back at you. Guess she was right as these people are finding out.
This can't be good for the newspaper.
Who cares about publishing the addresses and phone numbers of the execs. Let them see what it feels like to have your privacy violated in such a manner.
BigJimCalhoun
01-03-2013, 19:45
To clarify.. I meant it will hurt them, (which is them in turn reaping what they sew)
I am so much happier in Texas!
GC §411.192. CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS. (a) The department shall disclose to a criminal justice agency information contained in its files and records regarding whether a named individual or any individual named in a specified list is licensed under this subchapter. Information on an individual subject to disclosure under this section includes the individual's name, date of birth, gender, race, zip code, telephone number, e-mail address, and Internet website address. Except as otherwise provided by this section and by Section 411.193, all other records maintained under this subchapter are confidential and are not subject to mandatory disclosure under the open records law, Chapter 552.
I am so much happier in Texas!
GC §411.192. CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS. (a) The department shall disclose to a criminal justice agency information contained in its files and records regarding whether a named individual or any individual named in a specified list is licensed under this subchapter. Information on an individual subject to disclosure under this section includes the individual's name, date of birth, gender, race, zip code, telephone number, e-mail address, and Internet website address. Except as otherwise provided by this section and by Section 411.193, all other records maintained under this subchapter are confidential and are not subject to mandatory disclosure under the open records law, Chapter 552.
Actually, someone has already posted the names and addresses of every gun owner in Texas. :D :D :D
Ex-Burglars Say Newspaper’s Gun Map Would’ve Made the Job Easier, Safer (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/ex-burglars-say-newspapers-gun-map-wouldve-made-job-easier-safer/)
Reformed crooks say the New York newspaper that published a map of names and addresses of gun owners did a great service – to their old cronies in the burglary trade.
The information published online by the Journal-News, a daily paper serving the New York suburbs of Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties, could be highly useful to thieves in two ways, former burglars told FoxNews.com. Crooks looking to avoid getting shot now know which targets are soft and those who need weapons know where they can steal them.
Paragrouper
01-05-2013, 09:00
Actually, someone has already posted the names and addresses of every gun owner in Texas. :D :D :D
The one 6.0335 millimeters above the "g," that dot's mine!:D
The one 6.0335 millimeters above the "g," that dot's mine!:D
Which "g" ???
The one above the "g" in Orange or Gun ??? :D ;)
lol Up here, all they'd have to do is hand them the county phone book.
Inmates using newspaper's gun owner map to threaten guards, sheriff says (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/law-enforcement-latest-critics-on-public-display-gun-owner-data-officers/print#ixzz2H779tV2i)
Law enforcement officials from a New York region where a local paper published a map identifying gun owners say prisoners are using the information to intimidate guards.
Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco, who spoke at a news conference flanked by other county officials, said the Journal News' decision to post an online map of names and addresses of handgun owners Dec. 23 has put law enforcement officers in danger.
"They have inmates coming up to them and telling them exactly where they live. That's not acceptable to me," Falco said, according to Newsday.
Got this in an email:
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a double edge sword. What goes around comes around. Please pass this on. She's the anti-gun publisher that recently passed along every concealed carry gun owner and their address, from her county, in her newspaper, for ALL to see. .......soooooo let's return the favor!
Technically, she is the CEO of Gannett which owns several papers, one of which is the paper that published the names/addresses of CCW owners.
FOX News host Judge Jeanine Pirro delivers a message to The Journal News after the publication outed her as a gun owner in their effort to identify gun permit holders in New York state. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/12/judge_jeanine_pirro_rips_journal_news_for_outing_h er_as_a_gun_owner.html)
medic&commo
01-13-2013, 19:46
Would be interesting (i.e. good) to see the newspaper get into serious trouble over their inappropriate publishing considering a mapped home has been robbed - hope a connection can be made.
m&c
Class action using the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument.
http://newyork.newsday.com/news/nation/journal-news-gun-permit-map-fecal-matter-mailed-to-editor-cyndee-royle-1.4435666
:D
ZonieDiver
01-15-2013, 08:35
http://newyork.newsday.com/news/nation/journal-news-gun-permit-map-fecal-matter-mailed-to-editor-cyndee-royle-1.4435666
:D
Yeah, that kind of shit advances the cause... NOT!
Yeah, that kind of shit advances the cause... NOT!
What a shitty idea!
PedOncoDoc
01-15-2013, 09:00
http://newyork.newsday.com/news/nation/journal-news-gun-permit-map-fecal-matter-mailed-to-editor-cyndee-royle-1.4435666
:D
Are they going to run tests to determine if it's human feces?
Perhaps that stellar medical examiner from the Newton tragredy can help out... :rolleyes:
Yeah, that kind of shit advances the cause... NOT!
I hear you.....but the editor maliciously printed that information with the intent to create fear and uncertainty in those owning firearms, she invaded their privacy and potentially put them in harms way.
She received as she gave....fortunately it was just poo.
ZonieDiver
01-15-2013, 09:44
I hear you.....but the editor maliciously printed that information with the intent to create fear and uncertainty in those owning firearms, she invaded their privacy and potentially put them in harms way.
She received as she gave....fortunately it was just poo.
That part makes it sound as if you wish it had been 'more', which disturbs me...'more' than just a little.
Have ANY of the aggrieved firearms owners filed claims against said person? I'd recommend small claims court. A couple hundred suits at the legal maximum of the court, would be much more effective, and less harmful to "the cause" than packages of poo-poo, or - as you seem to advocate - worse.
Are there NO 'right wing' "Ambulance Chasers"?
Badger52
01-15-2013, 10:49
That part makes it sound as if you wish it had been 'more', which disturbs me...'more' than just a little.
Have ANY of the aggrieved firearms owners filed claims against said person? I'd recommend small claims court. A couple hundred suits at the legal maximum of the court, would be much more effective, and less harmful to "the cause" than packages of poo-poo, or - as you seem to advocate - worse.
Are there NO 'right wing' "Ambulance Chasers"?I continue to be impressed by your example. With all the hand-wringing & teeth-gnashing going on that "kinder/gentler" avatar thing is really workin' for you.
:D
Court: NYTimes's Request for New York City Gun Owners Violates Law
As did the previous release of a list of gun owners.
11:56 AM, Feb 5, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER
A New York appellate court has ruled that the New York Times's request for a list of gun owners in New York City, under the Freedom of Information Law, violates the state's statute. The ruling overturns in part a lower court's ruling.
"Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered November 1, 2011, granting the petition to the extent it sought an order directing respondent, under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law § 84 et seq.) (FOIL), to provide an electronic copy of a database, as redacted, of names and addresses of New York City residents who have been granted handgun licenses, and a database, to be redacted, of hate crimes reported to respondent from January 1, 2005 to the present, and denying the petition to the extent it sought an order directing respondent to provide an electronic copy of its crime incident database, a declaration that respondent's practices in responding to FOIL requests violate the statute, and an order directing respondent to cease these practices, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the petition as to the databases of handgun licensees and hate crimes and to reinstate the petition with respect to the demand for the crime incident database, insofar as it seeks production of the electronic crime incident database produced in Floyd v City of New York (08 Civ 01034 [SAS] [US Dist Ct, SD NY]) (the Floyd database), and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for a determination of whether production of the Floyd database should be ordered, and, if so, to what extent and under what conditions, and otherwise affirmed, without costs," reads the ruling.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/court-nytimess-request-new-york-city-gun-owners-violates-law_700264.html
ZonieDiver
02-05-2013, 21:41
I continue to be impressed by your example. With all the hand-wringing & teeth-gnashing going on that "kinder/gentler" avatar thing is really workin' for you.
:D
I cannot tell you how impressing you has made my day! :D
My "kinder and gentler" mode is based on this... basically::D:lifter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTh5JzRziHE
airbornediver
02-06-2013, 11:57
Got this in an email:
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a double edge sword. What goes around comes around. Please pass this on. She's the anti-gun publisher that recently passed along every concealed carry gun owner and their address, from her county, in her newspaper, for ALL to see. .......soooooo let's return the favor!
Technically, she is the CEO of Gannett which owns several papers, one of which is the paper that published the names/addresses of CCW owners.
I don't know how to repost it but I hope to see that image you posted passed around more often.
Newspaper that published the address' of all gun owners in two counties, just laid off 26 employees.
Could it be because after their little "stunt", people cancelled subscriptions, or just refused to buy their rag and that advertisers pulled their adds and the paper LOST money could be the cause? :munchin
http://www.lohud.com/article/20130805/NEWS/308050086/Journal-News-Media-Group-eliminates-26-positions?nclick_check=1