View Full Version : NY newspaper publishes gun owners names and addresses!
Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
12-25-2012, 08:08 PM
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/ny-newspaper-intimidates-gun-owners-by-publishing-names-addresses/comment-page-2/
So what’s the harm? Well the harm is first of all the publication just let every criminal in those areas know who has weapons and who does not. I would say this is far more dangerous for those without them than for those that have them. After all, if you are a criminal, and looking to rob a home, you would obviously want to make sure that you were robbing one where the owner doesn’t have a gun. In the case that you wanted to get a gun in a robbery, you would plan accordingly using the information.
While the news report claims that anyone can obtain the information with a Freedom of Information Law request, local official s in the clerk’s officers in these counties say the public does not have a right to see the kinds of permits an individual has been issued nor the types of weapons they possess.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/ny-newspaper-intimidates-gun-owners-by-publishing-names-addresses/comment-page-2/#comments#ixzz2G7Evqcmx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is exactly the kind of leftist irresponsible crap we have come to expect from those that seek to destroy this nation!
Question is, when will these traitors have to pay a price for such sorry crap!??--Tyr
aboutime
12-25-2012, 08:22 PM
We have to remember. The NEW YORK SLIMES also published SECRET GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS that put Every American in danger.
The NYT's publisher, and the pretend journalists who don't deserve Minimum wage...HATE AMERICA so much. They only think of how many PAPERS they put on the street.
If the NYT's isn't lying about something. The next best thing is PUT PEOPLE IN DANGER.
And they wonder why their readership keeps shrinking?????
Little-Acorn
12-25-2012, 08:46 PM
Have they started arranging the 24/7 pickets, harrassers and protesters for those homes yet?
Or is that delayed till next week?
aboutime
12-25-2012, 08:49 PM
Have they started arranging the 24/7 pickets, harrassers and protesters for those homes yet?
Or is that delayed till next week?
Maybe it's about time to PUBLISH the addresses, phone numbers, and names of schools where employee's of the NEW YORK SLIMES go. We could call it...AS THEY WOULD...
FAIR PLAY, and the LIBERAL THING TO DO.
Wonder how they'd like that?
Kathianne
12-25-2012, 09:30 PM
Not that I'd be surprised if NYT did that, but it wasn't that paper. From your link:
...On Monday, The Journal News (http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-?nclick_check=1) published the names and addresses of all gun permit holders in these areas...
I saw this last night, personally think the Journal has made a big mistake. Watch which houses get hit with burglaries in the coming months, bet it won't be those listed!
mundame
12-25-2012, 10:11 PM
The local paper used to publish sex offenders' photos every year (two full newsprint pages, small pix! makes you think, there are so many). I guess this is that sort of thing. The offender pix always seemed edgy to me and publishing a list of gun owners is even more edgy.
What's next? Any info that is public in some sense, I guess: traffic violations lists? How about who has been arrested for drunk driving? Who is married and who isn't? Darn.
aboutime
12-25-2012, 10:15 PM
Not that I'd be surprised if NYT did that, but it wasn't that paper. From your link:
I saw this last night, personally think the Journal has made a big mistake. Watch which houses get hit with burglaries in the coming months, bet it won't be those listed!
Kathianne. Doesn't really matter what paper (pardon me...RAG) posted those names. The results will, and are going to be the same.
You are probably right about those listed. But...what if YOU lived in one that wasn't? Would you worry?
Kathianne
12-25-2012, 10:41 PM
Kathianne. Doesn't really matter what paper (pardon me...RAG) posted those names. The results will, and are going to be the same.
You are probably right about those listed. But...what if YOU lived in one that wasn't? Would you worry?
Indeed. Unintended consequences, once again. They wanted to 'out' the legal gun owners, instead they printed the houses that are ripe for burglaries.
Kathianne
12-25-2012, 10:42 PM
The local paper used to publish sex offenders' photos every year (two full newsprint pages, small pix! makes you think, there are so many). I guess this is that sort of thing. The offender pix always seemed edgy to me and publishing a list of gun owners is even more edgy.
What's next? Any info that is public in some sense, I guess: traffic violations lists? How about who has been arrested for drunk driving? Who is married and who isn't? Darn.
You listed, other than the marriage thing, CRIMES. This was a list of LEGAL gun owners, with permits.
mundame
12-26-2012, 08:29 AM
I don't think it's true at all that burglars will hit the places NOT listed.
They'll go to the gun nut houses (I wonder if the lists show multiple gun permits?) and steal their guns! Expensive items, guns, easy to fence. Gun fanciers tend to have a LOT of guns so a list like this could be very useful to a drug addict/thief.
I wonder if people on the list have grounds for suing this newspaper.
On the other hand, public information is public information. I remember when newspapers published lists of marriages and divorces for the week. Probably don't bother anymore, since few people are marrying except homosexuals.
How about wills? They are filed with the local government office and could be public information about how much stuff people have and lots of other interesting info, like age and so on --- people who have wills filed are probably older than people who don't, and perhaps more vulnerable.
Not a good trend if more papers start long lists invading privacy this way, leaving people at risk of burglaries targeting them.
Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
12-26-2012, 09:26 AM
Now we see what they are really laying the foundation for!!-Tyr
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/ny-gov-gun-confiscation-is-an-option/
“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’ ” Cuomo said (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/nyregion/cuomo-says-he-will-outline-gun-measures-next-month.html?_r=4&). At the same time, he noted that he owns a shotgun that he has used for hunting, and said, “There is a balance here — I understand the rights of gun owners; I understand the rights of hunters.”
While the Governor did not offer any specifics that he might propose he did say:
“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”
So it appears that these people in power have absolutely no concept of what the Second Amendment says or implies. Now we are seeing the push at the federal level and the State level for more gun control legislation nonsense. “Keep your gun, but permit it” is what Cuomo thinks the Constitution states. I don’t recall those words among “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That is the law of the land currently. If you want to change the law, then I suggest you push for a Constitutional amendment, providing you can get the States to ratify it. I’m not holding my breath that there is a snowball’s chance in Hell with the Governor getting that done, nor the President and the liberals on Capitol Hill. This is why they attempt to write laws that undermine the governing document of the Country.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/ny-gov-gun-confiscation-is-an-option/#ixzz2GAU81m5p
DragonStryk72
12-26-2012, 10:17 AM
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/ny-newspaper-intimidates-gun-owners-by-publishing-names-addresses/comment-page-2/
So what’s the harm? Well the harm is first of all the publication just let every criminal in those areas know who has weapons and who does not. I would say this is far more dangerous for those without them than for those that have them. After all, if you are a criminal, and looking to rob a home, you would obviously want to make sure that you were robbing one where the owner doesn’t have a gun. In the case that you wanted to get a gun in a robbery, you would plan accordingly using the information.
While the news report claims that anyone can obtain the information with a Freedom of Information Law request, local official s in the clerk’s officers in these counties say the public does not have a right to see the kinds of permits an individual has been issued nor the types of weapons they possess.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/ny-newspaper-intimidates-gun-owners-by-publishing-names-addresses/comment-page-2/#comments#ixzz2G7Evqcmx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is exactly the kind of leftist irresponsible crap we have come to expect from those that seek to destroy this nation!
Question is, when will these traitors have to pay a price for such sorry crap!??--Tyr
That's not the New York Times, nor is the New York Times referenced in the article, so before everyone pillories the crap outaa NYT, let's make sure we have the correct target.
Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
12-26-2012, 10:28 AM
That's not the New York Times, nor is the New York Times referenced in the article, so before everyone pillories the crap outaa NYT, let's make sure we have the correct target.
Correct, my mistake in the thread title. Could a mod please remove the --T-- in the thread title (NYT) and amend it to read "NY newspaper" . Thanks.
Link that I gave shows the true source.. -Tyr
revelarts
12-26-2012, 12:20 PM
it's an attempt to "shame" gun owners.
it assumes that gun ownership is morally wrong.
it's diabolical technique, as mundane mentioned sex offenders names go in the paper.
I doubt many thieves are reading the paper, unless they are gun collectors.
Be interesting if the paper sent a few reporters and editors out to find former convicted violent criminals (public records) and personaly check to see if they have guns in their homes or on their persons THEN posted their names in the paper.
idiots.
Abbey Marie
12-26-2012, 01:13 PM
Correct, my mistake in the thread title. Could a mod please remove the --T-- in the thread title (NYT) and amend it to read "NY newspaper" . Thanks.
Link that I gave shows the true source.. -Tyr
Done
aboutime
12-26-2012, 03:10 PM
Correct, my mistake in the thread title. Could a mod please remove the --T-- in the thread title (NYT) and amend it to read "NY newspaper" . Thanks.
Link that I gave shows the true source.. -Tyr
Tyr. Mistake noted. But, when you really think about it. It was kind of FITTING, and oddly FREUDIAN that the extra "T" was there since we know the checkered past of the NEW YORK SLIMES anyway.
Wouldn't put it past them. So. Everything I said, directed at the NYT's STILL APPLIES. Nothing has changed. A RAG is still a RAG.
Robert A Whit
12-26-2012, 05:12 PM
I don't think it's true at all that burglars will hit the places NOT listed.
They'll go to the gun nut houses (I wonder if the lists show multiple gun permits?) and steal their guns! Expensive items, guns, easy to fence. Gun fanciers tend to have a LOT of guns so a list like this could be very useful to a drug addict/thief.
I wonder if people on the list have grounds for suing this newspaper.
On the other hand, public information is public information. I remember when newspapers published lists of marriages and divorces for the week. Probably don't bother anymore, since few people are marrying except homosexuals.
How about wills? They are filed with the local government office and could be public information about how much stuff people have and lots of other interesting info, like age and so on --- people who have wills filed are probably older than people who don't, and perhaps more vulnerable.
Not a good trend if more papers start long lists invading privacy this way, leaving people at risk of burglaries targeting them.
Any crook can go to the recorders office for a complete list of things of public record.
The paper only reminded crooks how to do it.
While some crooks may see homes containing arms as a place to loot, they also take a chance that weapons owners, now on high alert, will add to security and defeat the crooks intentions.
Such as home cameras, alarm systems and so forth.
Then the dog may bite them. Tne the person at home can fire to kill.
Why do you consider those of us that were protected by amendment to be nuts?
I noticed you don't call the crooks, nuts. Why not?
Robert A Whit
12-26-2012, 05:22 PM
Now we see what they are really laying the foundation for!!-Tyr
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/ny-gov-gun-confiscation-is-an-option/
“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’ ” Cuomo said (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/nyregion/cuomo-says-he-will-outline-gun-measures-next-month.html?_r=4&). At the same time, he noted that he owns a shotgun that he has used for hunting, and said, “There is a balance here — I understand the rights of gun owners; I understand the rights of hunters.”
While the Governor did not offer any specifics that he might propose he did say:
“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”
So it appears that these people in power have absolutely no concept of what the Second Amendment says or implies. Now we are seeing the push at the federal level and the State level for more gun control legislation nonsense. “Keep your gun, but permit it” is what Cuomo thinks the Constitution states. I don’t recall those words among “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That is the law of the land currently. If you want to change the law, then I suggest you push for a Constitutional amendment, providing you can get the States to ratify it. I’m not holding my breath that there is a snowball’s chance in Hell with the Governor getting that done, nor the President and the liberals on Capitol Hill. This is why they attempt to write laws that undermine the governing document of the Country.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/ny-gov-gun-confiscation-is-an-option/#ixzz2GAU81m5p
Ever notice that the Democrats that always yap about guns ignore that the majority of time, guns are not aimed at humans or animals. I believe that at ranges all over America, shooting at targets is the normal.
They don't mention that fully automatic weapons, aside from using a lot of ammo, also burden the shooter with a large ammo expense.
mundame
12-26-2012, 05:23 PM
Why do you consider those of us that were protected by amendment to be nuts?
I noticed you don't call the crooks, nuts. Why not?
I don't call the crooks nuts because they aren't nuts, often --- they are just bad men.
I don't call everyone who is "protected by the amendment" gun ntes; I call people with a lot of guns gun nuts, and so does everyone else in the country: it's a common term. Hey, guys, we've only got two hands each!! How many guns can you really use at once, you know? While you all are shuffling your Bushmaster and your Glock and your 22 and your 308 and your coach gun and you black-powder muzzle loader and all the rest, the robber is going to walk up and knock you in the head.
People who have more guns than ANYONE could conceivably need have an active fantasy life involving revolution and urban riots and Hispanic youth gang home invasion: I know what you all are dreaming about.
You've still only got two hands each.
aboutime
12-26-2012, 05:53 PM
I don't call the crooks nuts because they aren't nuts, often --- they are just bad men.
I don't call everyone who is "protected by the amendment" gun ntes; I call people with a lot of guns gun nuts, and so does everyone else in the country: it's a common term. Hey, guys, we've only got two hands each!! How many guns can you really use at once, you know? While you all are shuffling your Bushmaster and your Glock and your 22 and your 308 and your coach gun and you black-powder muzzle loader and all the rest, the robber is going to walk up and knock you in the head.
People who have more guns than ANYONE could conceivably need have an active fantasy life involving revolution and urban riots and Hispanic youth gang home invasion: I know what you all are dreaming about.
You've still only got two hands each.
And, unlike you mundame...from the way you sound. WE have One Brain, and you have none!
gabosaurus
12-26-2012, 06:47 PM
Isn't this an invasion on privacy?
I smell a mountain of lawsuits coming.
tailfins
12-26-2012, 07:02 PM
Isn't this an invasion on privacy?
I smell a mountain of lawsuits coming.
Republishing public information would be difficult if not impossible to make a case. Other kinds of pressure will be needed.
Marcus Aurelius
12-27-2012, 04:13 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/27/blogger-publishes-names-address-newspaper-staff-after-gun-permit-database/?test=latestnews
A blogger upset with a New York newspaper’s decision to publish an interactive map of local gun permit holders has returned the favor by posting the names and addresses of nearly every employee at the publication.
Fountain also displayed contact information for Robert Rodriguez, the “visual editor” responsible for the map itself, as well as many other employees.
mundame
12-27-2012, 04:17 PM
A blogger upset with a New York newspaper’s decision to publish an interactive map of local gun permit holders has returned the favor by posting the names and addresses of nearly every employee at the publication.
Wow! "Never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel." Old saying.
With the Internet, EVERYONE has ink by the barrel. Looks to me as though that nasty little newspaper has bitten off more than it can chew.
aboutime
12-27-2012, 04:18 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/27/blogger-publishes-names-address-newspaper-staff-after-gun-permit-database/?test=latestnews
[/COLOR][/LEFT]
Marcus. I suspect those people working for that NY newspaper never heard the expression "All's fair in Love, and War".
Or the question. "How's it feel when the shoe's on the other foot?"
Robert A Whit
12-27-2012, 05:10 PM
I don't call the crooks nuts because they aren't nuts, often --- they are just bad men.
I don't call everyone who is "protected by the amendment" gun ntes; I call people with a lot of guns gun nuts, and so does everyone else in the country: it's a common term. Hey, guys, we've only got two hands each!! How many guns can you really use at once, you know? While you all are shuffling your Bushmaster and your Glock and your 22 and your 308 and your coach gun and you black-powder muzzle loader and all the rest, the robber is going to walk up and knock you in the head.
People who have more guns than ANYONE could conceivably need have an active fantasy life involving revolution and urban riots and Hispanic youth gang home invasion: I know what you all are dreaming about.
You've still only got two hands each.
I am not a joiner as you seem to be. I see through problems, meaning I see what lies beneath.
You are speaking only of shooting weapons.
Try to look around your home. I suppose you have lots of stuff on display, on your walls, on shelves or cabinets and so on.
You are free to own as many oil paintings or water colors as you can afford. You can't look at each painting at one time. Having more than one gives you diversity.
Same with guns. Some may get an urge to blast a target with a shot gun. Then a pistol. Then that AR-15. It is variety. Keeps gun collectors from being bored.
Jay Leno loves cars. He can drive but one. But you don't read of laws to stop him from having over 1 car.
This is elementary freedom. And this time, the freedom is in constitutional law. (owning guns I mean)
Oh, I solved my problem with a semi automatic .22 cal pistol. Mine looks a lot like a Lugar so if somebody wants to enter my premises to harm me, I have my reply within easy reach. Who would you bet to win. Me or the robber?
I can hit him in either of his eyes. If he wants to rob me, he better bring a gang.
I have at times had 7/8 guns on hand. I sold all but the pistol off. Guns to me are but a tool.
I enjoy and have for most of my life, shooting in a safe setting at targets. To date i have not so much as shot in the area of a human.
Laws won't stop killers. They by definition don't mind breaking laws. But with the modification of my gun rights, it represents some gang of thugs trying to remove more of my freedom.
Freedom was won with blood shed. And some of us are determined that it may take more blood, but we plan to not lose our freedom.
It is the royal shits when a so called freedom loving government plans to remove my rights. It sucks I tell you.
mundame
12-27-2012, 05:29 PM
Try to look around your home. I suppose you have lots of stuff on display, on your walls, on shelves or cabinets and so on.
You are free to own as many oil paintings or water colors as you can afford. You can't look at each painting at one time. Having more than one gives you diversity.
Same with guns. Some may get an urge to blast a target with a shot gun. Then a pistol. Then that AR-15. It is variety. Keeps gun collectors from being bored.
Jay Leno loves cars. He can drive but one. But you don't read of laws to stop him from having over 1 car.
This is elementary freedom. And this time, the freedom is in constitutional law. (owning guns I mean)
Okay. I have to admit these are good arguments. We like to have more than we can use at one time. Of lots of things.
jimnyc
12-27-2012, 08:41 PM
I had not read much into this story until just now, I had not even opened the original article. What a surprise, that's my local paper. The papers and people around here are far left kooks. Sometimes I feel like I'm surrounded by tens of thousands of truthmatters's. I'm sure much of their readers think this was a good stunt. Dumbasses.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.