If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Rockland County Times)   News: Print names and addresses of gun owners. Fark: Hire armed guards to protect your newspaper office   (rocklandtimes.com) divider line 80
    More: Followup, Rockland County, Putnam County, McBride, security guards, owners, RGA Investigations, guns  
•       •       •

9576 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Jan 2013 at 3:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-01 07:37:30 PM
7 votes:
I came here to make fun of the headline, but now I'm thinking...

Wouldn't armed private security employees by definition be private citizens from the surrounding community who have pistol permits? Did they think this whole thing through?
2013-01-02 07:04:06 AM
5 votes:
The paper exercised their 1st Amendment rights.

People in favor of the 2nd Amendment exercised their 1st Amendment rights to express that they thought that the paper's actions, while legal were an example of extremely poor judgment that may place people at risk.

The paper felt that the exercise of many people's 1st Amendment rights was a threat to them even though there were no actual threats.

The paper decided to exercise the 2nd Amendment rights that they opposed through the exercise of their 1st Amendment rights so that they can continue to use 1st Amendment rights to oppose 2nd Amendment rights that are currently protecting their 1st Amendment rights without continued interference from other people's 1st Amendment rights.

Do I have that all correct?
2013-01-02 04:28:43 AM
5 votes:
/Begin Rant

On a related front, many gun control activists push for publishing gun owner information at a national level. The simple fact is that most states (with states like NY, IL, CA, etc. being exceptions) don't actually keep records of gun ownership, nor do they register guns. Neither does the Federal government. All that the Feds require (which all states enforce) is that the FFL-licensed dealer who sells the gun to the public keep a hard paper copy of the record of sale in a secure location. Then, if/when a gun is used in a crime (and captured as evidence), all they can do is trace the serial number from the manufacturer/distributor to the FFL-license holder who sold the gun originally, and from there to the first owner. The ATF has kept records of some gun purchases, but only since 2003 and only about 4 million records exist. If the gun is subsequently resold to an FFL-license holder, then it will be re-recorded as a secondary sale, but tracing it may be difficult. Private owners are also not required to keep records of who they transfer, give, or sell their guns to, but can be held responsible if the gun is used in a crime and the perp was shown to be legally ineligible for firearms ownership.

Registration itself has been argued to be unconstitutional in several court cases, and is prohibited at the federal level by the firearms owner protection act, hence the government depends largely on private FFL-owners to keep records, for at least 10 years if I remember right (maybe forever).

So, when/if they try to ban "assault weapons", good luck to them to find all 2-10 million of them already in private hands (and that's just the range of estimates I've seen for AR-15s, and may/may not include various kalashnikovs, FN, HK, SKS, rugers, etc. makes). They won't know where to start, and the subsequent house-house searching is going to be interesting to watch. Or, they could just repeat 1994 and grandfather in all of those existing weapons, but I don't think that is going to solve the problem the way most gun control advocates foresee/would like.

Gun control at this point truly is a slippery slope, because by the time you actually have legislation that would truly ban guns (ie remove all existing functioning weapons of a given type from the populace, bar none), you're likely going to violate a number of other constitutional rights while simply enforcing the ban.

Some gun control advocates have argued that we should have an Australia-style buyback. Well, living there right now I can tell you there are still several shootings a week in the Sydney area alone. They also only had to buy back about 700,000 guns. Sounds like a lot until you realize that is just over a quarter of the low estimate for the number of assault rifles in the US. Also, while Australia did have a gun "culture" comparable to that of the US, they never had a 2nd amendment, and all of the political force that has generated in the use/misuse by the NRA. I doubt most American gun owners, especially those who legally own "assault weapons" and have done so without breaking any laws, are going to feel nearly as eager to have that which they perceive as a right (rather than a privilege) taken away.

I'm truly open to the idea/discussion of gun control, because I agree with the basic idea that more guns = more gun injuries/deaths. You'd have to be a simpleton not to realize that the two are correlated at least to some degree (if to no other level than no gun death would be possible if no guns existed). That said, I don't think most gun control advocates realize the practical and political nightmares that would come if they truly achieved what they advocate. This is especially true when every mass shooter has been shown to have mental issues/life disrupting events that contributed at least in part to their actions. We should absolutely work to ensure that guns cannot fall into the hands of those who exhibit an increased risk to harming others, however that can be done.

However, the one argument I've heard gun control advocates use that I absolutely disagree with is "I don't want my child to have to live in fear". There are two arguments against this- first, the chances of being shot, even with 300 million guns in the country, are still far lower than a number of events that could result in equal injury/death, like being electrocuted, hit by a car, or falling down a flight of stairs. Second, I truly believe a little fear is a healthy thing. The world, once you cut away our polite society, is a ruthlessly dangerous, yet beautiful, place. A little fear can go a long way to build respect and knowledge of a danger, which may mean the difference between survival and injury/death when placed in a dangerous situation.
End Rant/
2013-01-01 10:23:26 PM
5 votes:

GAT_00: Ignoring the headline fail, it seems gun owners are really helping that whole image of them being tough guys who threaten everyone with their guns.


That explains why the police investigated both threats sent to the newspaper...oh wait, they determined there had been no threats.
2013-01-01 07:39:23 PM
5 votes:
Gun owners are all peaceful and responsible, and they'll shoot you if you say otherwise.
2013-01-02 04:58:33 AM
4 votes:

James F. Campbell: Gun owners prove how non-violent they are by making threats against the newspaper that published their names and addresses.


Who made threats? Nobody made any threats.

Who's providing the security? Private citizens with guns.

Your hypocrisy is showing, kid.
2013-01-02 06:30:54 AM
3 votes:
Are liberals ever not hypocrites?
2013-01-02 06:21:51 AM
3 votes:
Some of those "gun nuts" the paper outed were battered women who were avoiding their abusers. Paper put them in danger. Don't fark with people's privacy.
2013-01-02 05:59:51 AM
3 votes:
WE'RE THE GOVERNMENT. Trust us...


shtfplan.com

- Some kooks kill a few people, we should now hand over our weapons to the same government responsible for murder thousands.
- Trust the same government that's been stealing from you through corporate cronyism and allowing dollar debasement.
- Trust the same government that expects you to manage your finances well...so you can pay a government that can't control its own spending. So much so that we're racked up as much debt in the last 4 years as it took for us to rack up between the times of George Washington to George W Bush.
- Trust the same government which has just allowed warrant-less e-mail searches and indefinite detention of citizens.
- Trust the same government that has repeatedly stated that you have NO RIGHT to police protection.
- Trust the same government which has a history of enslavement, corruption, forced sterilization and eugenics campaigns, was brought back from the brink by a few brave people, yet heading back towards the path of corruption and totalitarianism again.
2013-01-02 04:11:45 AM
3 votes:
Do as I say (pointing out gun owners in a negative slant), not as I do (hiring gun users to protect ourselves).

The actors and celebs clamoring for gun control from behind their armed bodyguards are no different.
2013-01-02 04:04:47 AM
3 votes:
These fascist thugs must never be allowed protection from firearms ever again. Eat your own dog food, or else show us all what sniveling, hypocritical little biatches you really are.
2013-01-01 07:35:20 PM
3 votes:
Ignoring the headline fail, it seems gun owners are really helping that whole image of them being tough guys who threaten everyone with their guns.
2013-01-02 02:43:39 PM
2 votes:

AdmirableSnackbar: And gun nuts like dittybopper refuse to even discuss any kind of regulation that could help prevent these tragedies in the future because those regulations are an infringement of their rights and they refuse to be "oppressed" into showing any form of responsibility for how they handle their weapons.


In the UK, they used to have a mass shooting about every decade or so. There was one in 1969, one in 1987, one in 1989, and one in 1996. They got serious after Hungerford (1987) and banned "assault weapons", and after Dunblane (1996), they banned modern handguns. All of them.

That solved their mass shooting problem, right?

Nope. They had another mass shooting right on schedule in 2010, using the quintessential sportsman's guns, a scoped rifle in .22 LR, and a double-barreled shotgun. And that person managed to kill nearly as many as died in Dunblane and Hungerford.

So the question to ask yourself is: Since these events are truly random and unpredictable, and they aren't effected by even total bans on the types of firearms you want banned, what precisely should we do?

You're saying I don't have a solution to the problem. That's correct: I don't. What I do have is empirical evidence that your approach isn't going to work.

/Hint: To a firearms fancier, "gun nut" isn't pejorative.
//Nor is it any more pejorative than "car nut" to the general public.
2013-01-02 01:30:59 PM
2 votes:

AdmirableSnackbar: I'm not arguing from a legal perspective, I will readily concede that the "guns for everyone" crowd has done an excellent job of ensuring exactly that.


There is no "guns for everyone" crowd. Even the most wild-eyed Second Amendment advocate concedes that violent felons and the profoundly mentally ill shouldn't have firearms.

I'm arguing from a moral and ethical perspective.


So am I.

Society does not need instruments of death in the hands of people who are irrational and/or mentally unstable.


So you are calling me, and my friends that own guns, mentally unstable just because we own them? Isn't that circular reasoning?

All of us are irrational at points in our lives, but there is a difference between being irrational, and being violent. Likewise with being mentally unstable. You can be quite mentally stable and rational, and still be a violent person who has no business owning a firearm (or any weapon for that matter). Likewise, you can be mentally unstable and irrational, but still not harm a fly.

At this point the general public has much, much more to fear from people such as yourself than we do from the government.


Actually, people have less to fear from legal gun owners than you might think: Something like 75% of people arrested for murder have a prior adult felony arrest record. If you added in those who had a juvenile arrest record (which are generally sealed and thus not available), it would likely go to a much higher percentage. Those aren't the typical gun owner, to be sure.

Accidents are also quite low: There are generally only about 600 accidental gun deaths a year in the US, or about 1 for every half a million people.

Also, there is a problem with your phrasing: "At this point", which may be true right now, but will it be true 20 years from now? 50? 100? 200? What happens if there comes a point when you *NEED* to have guns (or their future version) to protect against, or perhaps even overthrow, a tyrannical government, but you no longer have them? Isn't that pretty much what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany? They had very few guns, and really no tradition of using them anyway, so they couldn't really resist when they needed to. They had to learn about them too late. Or what about the typical Russian during the Soviet era purges? Even a military officer thought this:

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur -- what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

You can't expect people to resist government agents carrying guns with shovels and pokers! And let us be honest: Government oppression such as Solzhenitsyn described happens at the retail level, and that's where it must be stopped.

The really nice thing about the Second Amendment, though, is that as long as it's taken seriously as an individual right, it's not really needed for one of its main purposes: No government would seriously consider trying to oppress tens of millions of armed people. Once it has been removed, though, that takes away a serious obstacle to tyranny. That's not to say that repealing or neutering the Second Amendment would inevitably lead to an oppressive, totalitarian US, but removing it is a necessary precondition to getting there.

I know it was mentioned earlier in the thread, but Second Amendment advocates have a saying: "Four boxes keep us free: Soapbox, ballot box, jury box, and the cartridge box". Those are the right to free speech, the right to vote, the right to trial with a jury of your peers, and the right to own guns. What is often left unsaid, because it doesn't really fit on a bumper sticker, is that they should be used in that order. The last option, the cartridge box, is truly the option of last resort, after free speech, voting, and jury nullification no longer work.

It's the ultimate in checks and balances, and one that doesn't require an impartial court system or functioning legislature to work.
2013-01-02 10:24:16 AM
2 votes:

ronaprhys: It's also not what every gun nut warns about


The Jeffersonian significance of guns directly supports the need for large-capacity clips and high-delivery-rate (that means reloadable and semi-automatic, not full-auto) assault weapons: the country was founded because the Government at the time was terrible and we needed to beat them down with guns. Treason is punishable by death, so if you do it you better mean it and you better have an army backing you that can actually pull it off--if you win, it's not treason.

Large-capacity ammunition magazines are also good for the firing range, where you'll be firing off dozens if not hundreds of shots at a time. It's nice to have more than 5 bullets between reloads. Assault weapons are not necessary for this purpose; however practice with an assault weapon is necessary if you intend to prepare yourself to use one.

It's not time yet, but it's the perfect time for the government to nip the Jeffersonian thing in the bud. Currently, we still have a situation where we could turn the government around by effort of voting, of replacing politicians, of the citizenry arming itself with information. Soap box, ballot box, and jury box--refuse to convict for crimes that shouldn't be crimes, refuse to vote for politicians that shouldn't be politicians, and above all shout loudly (like the Tea Party) about your beliefs. At the moment, the vast majority do not care--they wish to "not waste their vote" on a third party, and they are quite happy giving up as many freedoms and accepting as much domestic spying as they're asked to feel safe.

That's why we need to fight to keep our guns now: because it's not time to use them but it is time to lose them. This is not a Jeffersonian situation, we don't need to start executing the politicians in the streets. We just need to keep the balance of power so that maybe, hopefully, someday, the people will vote with their actual god damn votes and throw these assholes out.

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. -- Voltaire
2013-01-02 10:11:30 AM
2 votes:
The crap is starting to get out of hand.
westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com
2013-01-02 08:54:32 AM
2 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: HotWingConspiracy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: HotWingConspiracy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: HotWingConspiracy: Yes. It's useful information, especially when discerning motives and history of prospective candidates.

So you get to scrutinize everyone else, even if they're not interested in running for public office? This makes sense to you?

Yes, laws are to be applied equally.

Did you know that people who are employed in the public sector can be subject to far more scrutiny that is legal for those in the private sector? Yeah, I know you didn't.

Changes nothing. I'm looking forward to your Supreme Court challenge against voting records being public record.

It changes everything. It just proved that you don't know what the fark you're talking about.

No. Your buddy picked a really bad example and I've demonstrated that. We can look at voting records, just like we can look at records for gun ownership. Pick something else.


Drivers license information.

You can't publish drivers license information, or vehicle registration information. It's restricted, at least in NYS:One of the permissible uses is "Use in research activities and in producing statistical reports, as long as the personal information is not published, disclosed or used to contact individuals." Emphasis in original.

It's ironic that NYS gives more protection to a privilege (driving) then it does to an enumerated right (owning a handgun).
2013-01-02 06:43:01 AM
2 votes:
James F. Campbell

Favorited. You sir, are a classic. Honest to God, you are the first person I've favorited just because i can't wait to see what dumb shiat you have to say next
2013-01-02 05:51:39 AM
2 votes:

James F. Campbell: WhiskeyBoy: As soon as someone starts shooing up a place, they are no longer "oh-so-law-abiding", so no.

Talk about missing the point...

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Dude, the cops themselves found no valid threats to the newspaper. They're just being AWs at this point by hiring armed guards.

Ah, yes, of course. It's a publicity stunt, because armed guards are cheap and newspapers are profitable. And the police -- many of whom no doubt own guns privately -- have no reason not to investigate (even if it weren't political suicide).


They  have an agenda and they're running with it. When someone, or some organization such as this newspaper, is such an AW with a clear "no guns" agenda, money doesn't really matter so much as trying to "prove" their point, even if it's damn dirty lies and fearmongering behavior. That's what all this BS is about. I, as a responsible gun owner who is actually totally in favor of mandatory training and testing, should not be put in danger by d-bags like this, nor should I be penalized. Every time I buy a new weapon, I learn how to use it by taking classes, as should everyone. If I can't afford  the class and the firearm, I don't buy the firearm.  I am probably the least harmful gun owner on the planet (actually, the overwhelming majority of us are very non-harmful) and jerks like this are putting something on all of us that we do not deserve.

Is it a "publicity stunt" the newspaper is pulling off? I don't know for sure. I do know they're being whiny biatches about people being mad at them for making it easy for the baddies to find guns when legal owners are at work and then publicizing their angst and/or stupid about "Oh, noes! We made people mad! Let's do it again with another FOIA request! That will make everything better". WTF?

No. Just no. Just like the Christers shouldn't be peering in your bedroom windows to make sure you're having only Jehovah approved sex, the anti-gun whack jobs should not be publicizing your information and trying to scare you so bad you do get that CCW so you don't have to leave you guns unattended while you are at work. They're shooting themselves in the foot with their own poor behavior, so to speak.
2013-01-02 05:08:50 AM
2 votes:

doglover: Who made threats? Nobody made any threats.


Yeah, those nobodies made so many no-threats that the newspaper had to hire a private security firm:

FTA: Due to apparent safety concerns, the newspaper then decided to hire RGA Investigations to provide armed personnel to man the location.

It doesn't really speak well for gun owners that their first reactions to someone exercising their perfectly justified right of free speech are to threaten others with violence.

doglover: Your hypocrisy is showing, kid.


My hypocrisy? What the blue farking blazes are you blathering about, you bloviating blockhead? The permits are public record. The newspaper did nothing that no one couldn't already look up on their own. But I guess the Second Amendment is the only one that matters.

Are you going to cheer if one of those oh-so-law-abiding gun owners shoots up the newspaper's office?
2013-01-02 04:46:44 AM
2 votes:
What a grand display of hypocrisy.
2013-01-02 04:22:33 AM
2 votes:

RabidJade: Do as I say (pointing out gun owners in a negative slant), not as I do (hiring gun users to protect ourselves).

The actors and celebs clamoring for gun control from behind their armed bodyguards are no different.


This. But don't forget to add politicians, and journalists. Why is it ok for someone who is anti-gun to hire a responsible user of a firearm to protect them, while at the same time trying to make it against the law for me to become a responsible firearm owner to protect myself, my home and my family? How do they not see the irony and hypocrisy in that?
2013-01-02 04:15:42 AM
2 votes:
Its like they are ashamed of what their public records say. 

You'd think they would be proud and feel even safer after their "armed to the teeth" status was made known far and wide. As we've all seen: screaming about all the guns you own and how armed you are is the best way to deter crime.  Often have we all heard the very well hung, uh, I mean very well armed point out that if you want to make sure schizophrenics cant buy weapons, you should post a sign in your yard telling everyone your house is unprotected.
2013-01-02 01:03:19 AM
2 votes:

whither_apophis: The paper did them a favor, now all the burglars will know not to pick their houses.


Alternatively, stake the place out until they're sure that nobody's there, break in and try to get some free guns. Or, go to every other house on the list because they know that the occupants are unarmed. The latter would be a bit of schadenfreude, but the truth is that no matter how inappropriate their actions were I wouldn't wish ill on anybody in any incident that stems from their irresponsible reporting.

Freedom of the press allows the press to report without fear of government censorship. That is not the same as making correct and proper editorial decisions. Should there be a crime as a result of their actions, the editors will be individually and collectively exempted from consequences, yet they will still be responsible. I hope, though I can't be certain, that they ponder that before they decide to do this the next time.
2013-01-02 12:00:01 AM
2 votes:
Original headline: News: Print names and addresses of gun owners. Fark: Hire armed guards to protect your guard your newspaper office

Just in case the admins decide to change it like they usually do, thus rendering the entire first half of a thread moot.
Hopefully they change that policy this year. Minor things fine, but egregious errors, leave 'em.
2013-01-02 11:30:20 PM
1 votes:
None of my guns are registered. Problem solved.
2013-01-02 07:53:00 PM
1 votes:
If a newspaper decided to print a map of a different public record, maybe the names and addresses of all same sex marriage applicants, I wonder what the reaction would be. Just because something is a public record doesn't mean it's a good idea to publicly advertise it in a format for small-minded people to fixate over.
2013-01-02 07:44:36 PM
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: HotWingConspiracy: Right. Contrary evidence doesn't count, and if something is difficult it's impossible. Sorry, I forgot.

Stating what happens in another country isn't exactly "evidence". Do you know how science works? You can't just look at one thing that's different between 2 groups and ignore every other thing that differs between them and declare you have an answer.


You are arguing with someone who thinks that people being killed because they vote is a crybaby argument. If only I had known that when I was in Iraq for their first free elections. I could have just told the families of all the dead people we saw and the people we saw who had hands and thumbs cut off because they had purple ink on them, "Quit being a crybaby and get over it." When we were dealing with the people launching mortar rounds at the election site we were protecting I could have been sleeping or something because everyone knows that the people who didn't want to get blown up were just a bunch of crybabies. Same with the people who were literally torn to pieces by a car bomb. Crybabies. People lynched by the Klan or who had churches bombed in the 50s for exercising voting rights; crybabies. People who want to deny others the right to guns, but have guns protecting them from people who express a different opinion; perfectly rational.
2013-01-02 01:41:16 PM
1 votes:
So, if you're RICH, and / or you can afford your own personal security detachment, guns are O.K..

Got it.
2013-01-02 12:35:40 PM
1 votes:

BarkingUnicorn: I really cannot understand why the Journal News did this.

One look at that map would tell them how many readers they were going to lose.

The information will do nothing to help prevent another Newtown.

No gun permit holder is going to be shamed into giving up his guns.

There will be no restrictions on where gun permit owners can live, as there are for sex offenders.

I don't believe criminals will take advantage of this info.

It can only engender fear and mistrust among neighbors.


Pretty much this.

As to the last point, it is refreshing to see on yet another one of these threads that the pants-wetters who are terrified of guns thankfully do not own them. Funny how they continually try to project their own inadequecies and immaturity on others.
2013-01-02 12:07:00 PM
1 votes:
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
2013-01-02 11:37:24 AM
1 votes:

Latinwolf: Buddha Belly: Some of those "gun nuts" the paper outed were battered women who were avoiding their abusers. Paper put them in danger. Don't fark with people's privacy.

If those lists were public record, then the abusers would already have had access to them. Very unlikely that there were any battered women in hiding on that list.


Yes, but there are public records, and there are records that are publicly available in an anonymous fashion.

You can't just get the records of pistol permits online. You'd have to go to the pistol licensing authority in your county and request them. That is the kind of thing a stalker is loathe to do: Ask a judge's clerk for the information. By publishing that data in a form that you can look up anonymously, the newspaper did all potential stalkers a major favor.

Also, they published the records for 44,000 people. If there weren't any people avoiding stalkers/batterers in that number, I'd be surprised.
2013-01-02 11:35:54 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Ignoring the headline fail, it seems gun owners are really helping that whole image of them being tough guys who threaten everyone with their guns.


Once again people with legally licensed firearms are not the issue, you can bet most of the people threatening them did not even own a gun.
2013-01-02 11:21:53 AM
1 votes:
Would the three of you just get a room already?
2013-01-02 11:00:25 AM
1 votes:
The editors have said they believe knowing where guns are is in the public's interest.

Yes because if you discover that you are living next to a gun owner you should probably just go ahead and FUD your pants
2013-01-02 10:59:55 AM
1 votes:
This is so lame. This will only tell you where all the legal gun owners live....

Just a guess but maybe 1 out of 100 guns in this country are legally owned and or documented.
2013-01-02 10:57:28 AM
1 votes:
It's not hypocrisy.

The newspaper never took the stance that it was wrong to own weapons. They just interviewed that guy at the YMCA who thought all the weapons made him nervous.

Hypocrisy would be running an editorial saying it was wrong to make money by milking every last drop of sensationalism out of dead children.
2013-01-02 10:12:14 AM
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: ronaprhys: HotWingConspiracy: Has anyone considered the flip side that having these records might be useful in a situation where people with guns might be needed?

Well, let's see. For that to happen it would be necessary for the entire police force to be overwhelmed, the National Guard to be overwhelmed, and probably for the actual non-NG military to be deployed within our borders. At that point, everything has gone to hell so badly that regularly firearm-owners may already be involved.

So it's basically what every gun nut warns us about when they imagine they're being threatened. You'll be a hero of the new republic when our broken military reaches out to you to defend the homeland.


Your selective use of probability is amusing. On the one hand, you get to dismiss a need for guns being used for self defense as too improbable to justify their ownership. On the other hand, when a small handful of people in a country of over 300,000,000 citizens go on a killing spree, that extremely low probability of such an event happening is too much to tolerate, and requires a restructuring of society's rights. Do you even realize how ridiculous you sound?
2013-01-02 09:53:51 AM
1 votes:

James F. Campbell: Gun owners prove how non-violent they are by making threats against the newspaper that published their names and addresses.


The "threats" were "angry phone calls".

Hint: Voicing your disapproval isn't a threat, even when it's well-known you carry a .45
2013-01-02 09:32:47 AM
1 votes:

chuckufarlie: more proof that gun owners are the sane responsible citizens that they want us to believe they are.

That was very painful to type.


I would note that the article explicitly states that no threats from firearm owners were issued, according to police, nut you have already demonstrated yourself to be entirely dishonest and utterly irrational in previous discussions thus I am aware that facts are of no relevance to your position.
2013-01-02 09:21:39 AM
1 votes:
Time goes by...people begin to forget.


...then in the middle of the night a fire starts
2013-01-02 09:08:13 AM
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: Has anyone considered the flip side that having these records might be useful in a situation where people with guns might be needed?


have you considered how useful this information will be to spousal abusers to find their exes?
2013-01-02 09:01:58 AM
1 votes:

James F. Campbell: Gun owners prove how non-violent they are by making threats against the newspaper that published their names and addresses.

Gosh, it's almost as if gun owners are limp-dicked, immature, and terrifying paranoiacs who only understand the world through a black-and-white, violence-filled filter.


Almost like how you proved all gun grabbing pussies are too farking retarded to comprehend TFA. Remember the part where the farking COPS said there was no evidence f any threats being made? Wait, probably not... you already proved you don't understand this simple article. Good luck with life, Son.
2013-01-02 09:00:20 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Ignoring the headline fail, it seems gun owners are really helping that whole image of them being tough guys who threaten everyone with their guns.


In this case, I think you're talking out of your ass (as usual). The Newspaper published the names and addresses of gun owners who had done nothing other than own a gun in the newspaper's readership area. Aside from exposing some people who owned guns and were living in legitimate fear of ex boyfriends and such, it pissed people off. So, people turned around and published the names and addresses of the people at the newspaper.

It appears that the newspaper doesn't like having their info distributed publicly any more than the gun owners did, and instead of simply complaining and demanding the info be taken down, the newspaper freaked out and hired guards.

For the newspaper folks:

3.bp.blogspot.com
2013-01-02 08:51:19 AM
1 votes:
bull·shiat /ˈboolˌshiat/ Noun 1. vulgar. Stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense.
Verb 2. vulgar. Talk nonsense to (someone), typically to be misleading or deceptive.
Proper Noun 3. HotWingConspiracy
2013-01-02 08:51:13 AM
1 votes:

sundown57: bostonbd: sundown57:
What law abiding gun owner would leave his gun home while at work ? or EVER ?

Maybe one who has a permit to own a handgun, but not carry? or one who lives in one state and works in another more restrictive state/city?

I know many hunters who aren't bringing their shotguns to work everyday.

Thats why I put (law abiding) meaning they have the correct permits to carry.


So, if you have a permit to own a handgun for home and range use, but not a CCW permit, you are not a law abiding citizen when you follow the requirements of your ownership?

Or what if you work in a building designated as a "gun free zone" and are prohibited from carrying your gun at your place of work? Of if you own more than 1 gun? Or if you're going out for a few drinks?

In general, I find your question rather ridiculous.
2013-01-02 08:45:22 AM
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: So the speech killed these people? That's pretty amazing. Was it like some kind of Snow Crash situation, where it scrambled people's brains upon reading it? Or did these people go get legal weapons and start killing?


Don't act stupid, it doesn't suit you. All freedoms have a price. Only the shallowest of intellects think otherwise. Freedom of Speech means that abhorrent ideas get to have their day, and it's not *SUPPRESSION* of speech that keeps them in check, but more speech.

Also, I didn't add in minor stuff like Klan lynchings due to their hate speech and the like.

I wonder how many people the klan killed with legal guns.


I wonder how many people the Klan didn't kill because despite the best efforts of those who passed racist gun control laws, at least some of their targets legally owned guns.
2013-01-02 08:38:34 AM
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: HotWingConspiracy: So what abuses have occurred from public voting records? Actual examples, not paranoid fantasy.

I'm pretty sure people in Iraq, North Korea, and many other countries could educate you.


Or any victims of the Klan and like minded groups, who specifically targeted any blacks who were on the voter roles.
2013-01-02 08:33:16 AM
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: dittybopper:
More people have died as a result of religion and speech than have ever died as a result of private ownership of firearms.

I'm interested in seeing what metrics you used to come up with this.


Totals are for the 20th Century *ONLY*:

Speech:
Das Kapital: 148.5 million dead.
Mein Kampf: 20.9 million dead

Total for the two books:

Source: 20th Century Democide

Note that those deaths are *OUTSIDE* of war.

If you take that total of 169.4 million dead due to the adherents of those two books, and you spread them out over 100 years, that's a total of 1.694 million deaths per year. If you take the average World population over that time as 4 billion, that's a rate of 42.35 per 100,000. The highest homicide rate in the US in the 20th century was barely 1/4th that, at about 10 per 100,000.

Note that's just the death rate that is attributable to *SPEECH*. I didn't add in religion, because I don't have those numbers handy, but I'm sure it would make it somewhat worse.

Also, I didn't add in minor stuff like Klan lynchings due to their hate speech and the like.
2013-01-02 08:31:28 AM
1 votes:
Most of you seem to be forgetting one thing:

Having a pistol permit does not = owning a gun.

I have a pistol permit cooling its heels in my house but I have not purchased a pistol with it.
2013-01-02 08:30:28 AM
1 votes:

doglover: James F. Campbell: Ah, yes, of course. It's a publicity stunt, because armed guards are cheap and newspapers are profitable. And the police -- many of whom no doubt own guns privately -- have no reason not to investigate (even if it weren't political suicide).

So the police WANT someone to shoot up the place because they own guns? And these "armed guards" you speak of aren't private gun owners themselves?

Also one hyphen is usually considered sufficient.


Not when it's used to set off a parenthetical aside; then it's a long dash. Why would you go off on a pointless grammatical tangent if you don't know what you're talking about?
2013-01-02 08:11:29 AM
1 votes:

AdmirableSnackbar: People who wrap themselves in the second clause of the 2nd Amendment while completely ignoring the first clause are exactly the type of people who should never, ever own a gun. Irrational people with access to weapons have proven to bring about disastrous results.


You mean people like those serving in the supreme court? Way to fail.

You don't know what a militia was, and you don't know what well regulated meant when the document was written. If there's anyone who's ignorant and irrational here, it's you.
2013-01-02 07:56:56 AM
1 votes:

Warlordtrooper: dittybopper: Warlordtrooper: I like how all the people defending the second amendment don't have an equal passion for defending the first

Actually, we do, and we're exercising that right to express our disapproval of the actions of the newspaper.

You see, the First Amendment protects you from *GOVERNMENT* action, it is not blanket permission to publish anything about anyone. It just so happens that pistol permit records in NYS are classified as "public records", though, so legally there isn't much that can be done. I *SUPPOSE* one could argue that the newspaper, by combining those records with other public information, that the paper invaded the privacy of the owners, but that's pretty weak sauce.

The law should be changed so those records aren't public information.

Actually, the law should be changed so that you don't have to go through a lengthy and expensive process just to buy a handgun. A right that costs you over $100 and several months to exercise, and one that is subject to the whims of the licensing authority, is no right at all.

The people who tend to say the right to own guns should be easy also tend to be the people that believe the right to vote should require all sorts of hoops to jump through



Tell you what, the two should be tied together: The same exact process should be required for both. Both are rights.
2013-01-02 07:44:01 AM
1 votes:

Dadoody: WE'RE THE GOVERNMENT. Trust us...


[shtfplan.com image 640x360]

- Some kooks kill a few people, we should now hand over our weapons to the same government responsible for murder thousands.
- Trust the same government that's been stealing from you through corporate cronyism and allowing dollar debasement.
- Trust the same government that expects you to manage your finances well...so you can pay a government that can't control its own spending. So much so that we're racked up as much debt in the last 4 years as it took for us to rack up between the times of George Washington to George W Bush.
- Trust the same government which has just allowed warrant-less e-mail searches and indefinite detention of citizens.
- Trust the same government that has repeatedly stated that you have NO RIGHT to police protection.
- Trust the same government which has a history of enslavement, corruption, forced sterilization and eugenics campaigns, was brought back from the brink by a few brave people, yet heading back towards the path of corruption and totalitarianism again.


Everybody knows what a great job they did defending the rights of slaves, natives, religious minorities, ethnic minorities, political minorities, soldiers, the poor, the sick, gays, protesters and pretty much everybody else. The government-worshipping cultists always seems forget that. I thought the left was supposed to be the conscience of the people?
2013-01-02 07:41:29 AM
1 votes:

redmid17: GAT_00: Ignoring the headline fail, it seems gun owners are really helping that whole image of them being tough guys who threaten everyone with their guns.

That explains why the police investigated both threats sent to the newspaper...oh wait, they determined there had been no threats.


This!
Gat is a retarded liberal
2013-01-02 07:16:31 AM
1 votes:

Beauf: The paper exercised their 1st Amendment rights.

People in favor of the 2nd Amendment exercised their 1st Amendment rights to express that they thought that the paper's actions, while legal were an example of extremely poor judgment that may place people at risk.

The paper felt that the exercise of many people's 1st Amendment rights was a threat to them even though there were no actual threats.

The paper decided to exercise the 2nd Amendment rights that they opposed through the exercise of their 1st Amendment rights so that they can continue to use 1st Amendment rights to oppose 2nd Amendment rights that are currently protecting their 1st Amendment rights without continued interference from other people's 1st Amendment rights.

Do I have that all correct?


That actually hurt, but I think that you've got it right. I think.
2013-01-02 07:16:28 AM
1 votes:

Warlordtrooper: I like how all the people defending the second amendment don't have an equal passion for defending the first


Actually, we do, and we're exercising that right to express our disapproval of the actions of the newspaper.

You see, the First Amendment protects you from *GOVERNMENT* action, it is not blanket permission to publish anything about anyone. It just so happens that pistol permit records in NYS are classified as "public records", though, so legally there isn't much that can be done. I *SUPPOSE* one could argue that the newspaper, by combining those records with other public information, that the paper invaded the privacy of the owners, but that's pretty weak sauce.

The law should be changed so those records aren't public information.

Actually, the law should be changed so that you don't have to go through a lengthy and expensive process just to buy a handgun. A right that costs you over $100 and several months to exercise, and one that is subject to the whims of the licensing authority, is no right at all.
2013-01-02 07:08:54 AM
1 votes:
Sometimes, people just need killing.
2013-01-02 06:44:11 AM
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: Boy, everyone dropped the ball on this one.

Screw the death threats, gun owners, what needs to be done here is a massive class-action lawsuit against that newspaper for INVASION OF PRIVACY.

And no, the First Amendment does NOT protect the paper from invasion of privacy torts filed by private citizens who are not under investigation and who have otherwise done nothing wrong. The tort lawyers missed a great chance to make some money and look good doing it for a change.


The problem is, and this is a New York State government issue, that pistol permits are "public records" just like real estate deeds. I can go to my county GIS website and see who all the property owners are, how much they paid for their property, etc., all presented on a map. NYS and the counties in NYS don't actively publish that information for pistol permit holders, *BUT* because they are classified the same way as real estate records, they are available for anyone to see.

In my not-so-humble opinion, they should be at least as restricted as drivers licenses. Actually, I don't think they should be required for handgun ownership: Seems to me that a right (and the Supreme Court has said it's a right twice in the last 4 years) that you have to spend $125+ (more than $300 in NYC), get several personal references, get fingerprinted, and wait several months to exercise isn't much of a right at all, and in fact NYS law still treats it as a privilege, not a right.
2013-01-02 06:29:52 AM
1 votes:
Got a gun? Yo wiener be tiny. Case closed.
2013-01-02 06:18:35 AM
1 votes:
GAT_00

Ignoring the headline fail, it seems gun owners are really helping that whole image of them being tough guys who threaten everyone with their guns.


I see your downward spiral of intellectual dishonesty has picked up steam
2013-01-02 05:47:41 AM
1 votes:

James F. Campbell: Every time you open your pie-holes to complain about what the newspaper did, you are implicitly admitting that guns don't make you safe.


This paper is run by the same kinds of people who say we are supposed to trust the police rather than arm ourselves. When the police tell them there is no threat, but they still feel fearful, what do they do?
Turn to the second amendment and get themselves some hired guns, that's what.

Everyone knows that having guns on your side makes you safer.
They are complaining about begin called out by hypocritical rag.
2013-01-02 05:42:22 AM
1 votes:

HindiDiscoMonster: WhiskeyBoy: WhiskeyBoy: Are you retarded? Serious question.

Never mind. I just read your profile and answered my own question.

i have him farkied in yellow as an anti-gun tard.... been that way for awhile.


The profile is a thing of beauty. He's like a young Albert Fish.
2013-01-02 05:34:23 AM
1 votes:

James F. Campbell: WhiskeyBoy: As soon as someone starts shooing up a place, they are no longer "oh-so-law-abiding", so no.

Talk about missing the point...


No. Part of being a responsible, law-abiding gun owner is that you obey the rules and the laws of ownership. If you shoot up a place, you are not a law-abiding or responsible gun owner.

James F. Campbell: Every time you open your pie-holes to complain about what the newspaper did, you are implicitly admitting that guns don't make you safe.


Are you retarded? Serious question. Because you seem to be missing the meat of everything everyone has said so far. Not one comment that I've read yet from a pro-gun owner here has done anything of the sort. The complaint is that the newspaper is being greatly hypocritical. The newspaper tried to publicly shame gun owners who own guns for personal safety, then, acting in fear of retaliation, hired gun owners to supply them with personal safety. You get it yet?
2013-01-02 05:19:40 AM
1 votes:

James F. Campbell: doglover: Who made threats? Nobody made any threats.

Yeah, those nobodies made so many no-threats that the newspaper had to hire a private security firm:

FTA: Due to apparent safety concerns, the newspaper then decided to hire RGA Investigations to provide armed personnel to man the location.

It doesn't really speak well for gun owners that their first reactions to someone exercising their perfectly justified right of free speech are to threaten others with violence.


Reading comprehension fail. "Apparent safety concerns" is NOT the same as "the newspaper received threats". If you find us some evidence of the paper receiving physical threats, please link.


doglover: Your hypocrisy is showing, kid.

My hypocrisy? What the blue farking blazes are you blathering about, you bloviating blockhead? The permits are public record. The newspaper did nothing that no one couldn't already look up on their own. But I guess the Second Amendment is the only one that matters.


You know, all of the intelligence communities around the world have open-source research centers. Much of what is publicly available is "unclassified" but when you compile all of that information in to a nice, convenient central report, map or other data set, it can become "sensitive but unclassified" or even classified to one degree or another. Yes, the information was publicly available to anyone with the time, energy and patience to file all the paperwork necessary for a FOIA request. Pretty sure all the people who now have this information would not have gone through with a request like that. And if they had, for whatever personal curiosity, they probably wouldn't have gone to the trouble of making a farking interactive map for the public.

Are you going to cheer if one of those oh-so-law-abiding gun owners shoots up the newspaper's office?

As soon as someone starts shooing up a place, they are no longer "oh-so-law-abiding", so no. None of us responsible gun owners would have any compassion for that person or their actions. Give me a farking break, kid.
2013-01-02 05:16:45 AM
1 votes:

James F. Campbell: doglover: Who made threats? Nobody made any threats.

Yeah, those nobodies made so many no-threats that the newspaper had to hire a private security firm:

FTA: Due to apparent safety concerns, the newspaper then decided to hire RGA Investigations to provide armed personnel to man the location.

It doesn't really speak well for gun owners that their first reactions to someone exercising their perfectly justified right of free speech are to threaten others with violence.

doglover: Your hypocrisy is showing, kid.

My hypocrisy? What the blue farking blazes are you blathering about, you bloviating blockhead? The permits are public record. The newspaper did nothing that no one couldn't already look up on their own. But I guess the Second Amendment is the only one that matters.

Are you going to cheer if one of those oh-so-law-abiding gun owners shoots up the newspaper's office?


Dude, the cops themselves found no valid threats to the newspaper. They're just being AWs at  this point by hiring armed guards. "Oh, noes! Gun owners are violent because they gotz teh mad at us and made angry phone calls and sent mad emails! We must defend ourselves!" Did you not RTFA?

FTA, for your edification: "McBride had filed at least two reports with the Clarkstown Police Department due to perceived threats. However, the police did not find the communications in question actually threatening."
2013-01-02 05:14:24 AM
1 votes:

doglover: And you suck at alliteration, too.


I'll say one positive thing for you: your posts are consistently stupid.
2013-01-02 05:12:58 AM
1 votes:

RediixOne: Could care less if the public knows I am a gun owner. Infact, I find that an advantage. Kinda like a list for robbers of the houses NOT to break into.


Or a list of houses where guns are available to steal while owners are at work.
2013-01-02 05:11:17 AM
1 votes:

James F. Campbell: What the blue farking blazes are you blathering about, you bloviating blockhead?


And you suck at alliteration, too.
2013-01-02 05:06:31 AM
1 votes:

doglover: James F. Campbell: Gun owners prove how non-violent they are by making threats against the newspaper that published their names and addresses.

Who made threats? Nobody made any threats.

Who's providing the security? Private citizens with guns.

Your hypocrisy is showing, kid.


not to mention, this was already addressed with GAT... it's almost as if James F Campbell can't read or something.
2013-01-02 05:05:42 AM
1 votes:
Could care less if the public knows I am a gun owner. Infact, I find that an advantage. Kinda like a list for robbers of the houses NOT to break into.
2013-01-02 04:55:20 AM
1 votes:

juvandy: I doubt most American gun owners, especially those who legally own "assault weapons" and have done so without breaking any laws, are going to feel nearly as eager to have that which they perceive as a right (rather than a privilege) taken away.


It's a right that "shall not be infringed" according to the constitution. There's no perception about it.
2013-01-02 04:36:33 AM
1 votes:

juvandy: However, the one argument I've heard gun control advocates use that I absolutely disagree with is "I don't want my child to have to live in fear".


I'm with you.  A person without fear is a psychopath, or one of those goddam brats who runs screaming around a restaurant while I'm trying to eat.
2013-01-02 04:17:18 AM
1 votes:

propasaurus: Gun owners are all peaceful and responsible, and they'll shoot you if you say otherwise.


At  least we won't shoot your dog. That would be the cops' job.

/peaceful gun owner
//srsly, dudes
///unless you're a pepsi can or similar, then you are like SO DEAD
2013-01-02 04:16:51 AM
1 votes:
I really cannot understand why the Journal News did this.

One look at that map would tell them how many readers they were going to lose.

The information will do nothing to help prevent another Newtown.

No gun permit holder is going to be shamed into giving up his guns.

There will be no restrictions on where gun permit owners can live, as there are for sex offenders.

I don't believe criminals will take advantage of this info.

It can only engender fear and mistrust among neighbors.
2013-01-02 03:49:48 AM
1 votes:

Valiente: GAT_00: Ignoring the headline fail, it seems gun owners are really helping that whole image of them being tough guys who threaten everyone with their guns.

Well, their penises would hardly suffice, would they?


Mine's .40 cal, so it would.
2013-01-02 01:41:08 AM
1 votes:

BarkingUnicorn: quickdraw: cretinbob: Original headline: News: Print names and addresses of gun owners. Fark: Hire armed guards to protect your guard your newspaper office

Just in case the admins decide to change it like they usually do, thus rendering the entire first half of a thread moot.
Hopefully they change that policy this year. Minor things fine, but egregious errors, leave 'em.

Principal caught say of

It's "sayof," you revisionist!


It's "Pricipal."
2013-01-01 08:57:07 PM
1 votes:
The paper did them a favor, now all the burglars will know not to pick their houses.
2013-01-01 07:48:24 PM
1 votes:
I herd you like guards.
2013-01-01 07:26:06 PM
1 votes:
Watch two years pass without a single incident, and yet they'll still be convinced that the Big Bad Gun Guy will kick in the door at any moment, an AR-15 in one hand and an AK-47 in the other, and shoot the whole place up.
 
Displayed 80 of 80 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report