You keep saying we haven't proven it was political, you say there is no proof. The paper's staff justified it by saying they wanted to "inform people who may be uncomfortable that their neighbors might have a gun". Don't know how else that is to be taken, do you?
Now you are reaching.It could mean "We think people want to see this so we'll show it to them to up the cost of our advertising space"
You want me to prove a negative? Maybe they just thought it was an interesting piece that would garner readers to their paper, it may be something that simple, we don't know either way at this point.
Either way, do you agree that's acceptable to put them in danger just as they did with everyone in those counties they mapped?
Now you are reaching.
Anyone who tramples our civil rights should do so the peril of their personal safety.
What are you going to do? Please enlighten me, rage rage rage online but besides that then what?
If they claimed it was for the benefit of people uncomfortable with firearms around them, there is only one way to take it. They don't respect the second and this was a middle finger to owners.I don't know why they did it, or what the thought process was and I don't claim to know because besides their statement we have nothing to go on.
I guess there ARE people that are totally on board with the violation of the 2nd by authorizing a massive violation of the 4th. Personally...I find it repugnant and not a little bit chilling so many people are willing to allow...no...not allow...are ENTHUSED...by the government violating the hell out of peoples rights. As long as its rights they dont like. Because after all...how could THAT ever backfire...Any senator who uses forcibly confiscate should be forcibly removed from office, brought to trial, and if convicted on perjury forcibly thrown behind bars.
Didn't you swear an oath to, "defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic"?
Any senator who uses forcibly confiscate should be forcibly removed from office, brought to trial, and if convicted on perjury forcibly thrown behind bars.
Yeah...I think we can find a little bit of evidence of that...Firstly, you assume they are motivated by a desire to over turn the 2nd amendment or to further restrict gun rights. I haven't seen anything pointing towards that as a motivation, do you have any?
Secondly, if you believe that the reporters intentionally put people's lives at risk(again not proven it was intentional) and believe that doing the same in turn in fair play, that is ENCOURAGING VIOLENCE. You are making it easier for them to be the victims of violence just as they made it easier for gun owners and non gun owners to be the victims of violence. That is encouragement, or hell call it whatever you like but that's what you're doing or at least what you are supporting.
You have no morale grounds whatsoever to stand on, and you're just as bad as they are. Just because you believe in your politics doesn't justify doing something that's wrong, its wrong either way. Having a strong belief alone is not justification enough, because on the flip side of the coin is just as strong of a belief that's perhaps opposite of your own. So what is your argument, that its OK to encourage violence against people who have different political opinions?
cut a sub in half? with WWII era 20MM?I am not worried that a permit holder would go shoot a journalist
I am worried that a robber who specializes in violent home invasions will target someone who has weapons knowing they have weapons and maybe shooting them in the back when they open their door or shoot them as they walk out their door
one of the reasons to carry concealed is to surprise a robber
its sort of like my late great uncle used to do-he commanded a merchant marine fleet running stuff to the Russians. the german u boats often surfaced to get a better shot figuring merchant marine fleets didn't have escorts early in the war. so the good captain had a couple freighters with false sides that concealed a bunch of 20MM or Double Fifty HMG. the sub came up and the 20MM gunners cut it in half
now if the Nazis knew that one of the ships was a gunboat they would have torpedoed it in the middle of the night from a distance
You do realize that the first amendent doesn't cover violating a right to privacy yes?So long as you follow him for breaking his 1st amendment rights.
Whats that? Yes you can in fact, even as a public official, call for things not in or even against the Constitution and its protected in that same document. The SCOTUS determines what is constitutional or not and until its determined not to be Constitution by the SCOTUS or a lower court then its assume to be.
Wait till something they value comes under attack.I guess there ARE people that are totally on board with the violation of the 2nd by authorizing a massive violation of the 4th. Personally...I find it repugnant and not a little bit chilling so many people are willing to allow...no...not allow...are ENTHUSED...by the government violating the hell out of peoples rights. As long as its rights they dont like. Because after all...how could THAT ever backfire...
Yeah...I think we can find a little bit of evidence of that...
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that she and other gun control advocates are considering a law that would create a program to purchase weapons from gun owners, a proposal that could be compulsory.
“We are also looking at a buy-back program,” Feinstein said today in a press conference. “Now, again, this is a work in progress so these are ideas in the development.”
Error | C-SPAN
Assault Weapons - Issues - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein
In the interview, Mr. Cuomo did not offer specifics about the measures he might propose, but, while discussing assault weapons, he said: “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.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/n...ll-outline-gun-measures-next-month.html?_r=1&
Keep your 'morals'...I will stand more on the Constitution and rights contained therein. And when it comes to a 'fight', I dont believe in fighting fair. I believe in winning. but lets not lose sight of the facts. It is the side you are defending and embracing that has announced their intention to abandon constitutional rights and demonstrated exactly how they intend to fight this fight. Its laughable that you think responding in kind is immoral.
You do realize that the first amendent doesn't cover violating a right to privacy yes?
Yeah, but it's ok for a private citizen to violate your constitutional rights.
You've said time and again that the Constitutoon only applies to the government.As I said, while this may be public information, it shouldn't be published in this manner. It goes for both sides, thanks for reading.
Misused you mean. The word you are looking for is misused the Freedom of Information Act, the law was enacted to insure government transparency against themselves, not against citizens. So it's a "technically legal" situation, aren't you so proud of these "journalists"?Very true, and what was interesting was that when these reporters created this map they used the Freedom of Information Act and sensed their request was filled its obvious those records are considered public not private, so your comment doesn't really apply at all.
Now just for the record, I think those records should be private and not for release to the public.
Are we still talking about the reporters? Seems like we've radically left the topic. But either way I don't support the ideas these people have, and I don't support what the reporters did when they created and published this map, but I don't support your response either of encouraging violence.
If the first list did not encourage violence and merely violated privacy, why would you think that the second list encouraged violence, unless you think that journalist list posters are subject to a different set of privacy expectations than ordinary citizens?
I agree, those who should be pissed off are those not on the list. Posting by omission a list of those not able to defend themselves seems a little too much.
Misused you mean. The word you are looking for is misused the Freedom of Information Act, the law was enacted to insure government transparency against themselves, not against citizens. So it's a "technically legal" situation, aren't you so proud of these "journalists"?
You want people to prove they had bad intent, I think it's pretty damn obvious.Sure misused works as well. And I've stated several times I disagreed with their actions, so why are you asking me such a dumb question?
The reporters are the action arm of the gun ban crowd. Or...did you think they were being all friendly a nicey nice by posting the identity of gun owners? No...wait...you agreed they were intentionally putting them at risk.Are we still talking about the reporters? Seems like we've radically left the topic. But either way I don't support the ideas these people have, and I don't support what the reporters did when they created and published this map, but I don't support your response either of encouraging violence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?