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.
James F. Campbell: Gun owners prove how non-violent they are by making threats against the newspaper that published their names and addresses.
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.
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.
ronaprhys: It's also not what every gun nut warns about
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.
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).
doglover: Who made threats? Nobody made any threats.
doglover: Your hypocrisy is showing, kid.
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.
whither_apophis: The paper did them a favor, now all the burglars will know not to pick their houses.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
HotWingConspiracy: Has anyone considered the flip side that having these records might be useful in a situation where people with guns might be needed?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Warlordtrooper: dittybopper: Warlordtrooper: I like how all the people defending the second amendment don't have an equal passion for defending the firstActually, 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
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.
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.
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?
Warlordtrooper: I like how all the people defending the second amendment don't have an equal passion for defending the first
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
doglover: And you suck at alliteration, too.
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.
James F. Campbell: What the blue farking blazes are you blathering about, you bloviating blockhead?
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.
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.
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".
propasaurus: Gun owners are all peaceful and responsible, and they'll shoot you if you say otherwise.
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?
BarkingUnicorn: quickdraw: cretinbob: Original headline: News: Print names and addresses of gun owners. Fark: Hire armed guards to protect your guard your newspaper officeJust 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 ofIt's "sayof," you revisionist!
Want to see behind the curtain? Try
It's how we feed the squirrel
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Dec 13 2017 05:05:37
Runtime: 0.649 sec (649 ms)