AH...then surely if their actions did not engdanger the lives of gun owners, then the reciprocal action cant possibly be a threat to them. Now it is just a complementary breach of privacy.
Anyone who tramples our civil rights should do so the peril of their personal safety.
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.
Thanks for adding fear and fuel to the anti movement.
You've said time and again that the Constitutoon only applies to the government.
Alright, fair enough. The Constitution does restrict the government, yet that doesn't mean any individual may infringe upon the rights of another in the first place. As such in this case, I don't think the government should have this listed as public record. In fact given my stated opinion that we shouldn't have concealed weapons permits in the first place, that concealed and open carry should be assumed standard (like Vermont), the government shouldn't have record. But given that this is public record and people can look it up; I do not think the publishing of private addresses either by the press or in response to the the press should be allowed. The 4th amendment is one of the most attacked and whittled down of all our rights and I think that we should reassert its position and importance.
All the time, or just the times when you disagree with the rights infringment?
Pick a position willya?No I didn't agree to that at all. And when you use the phrase action you make it sound like they are all working together or something.
Pick a position willya?
"But I agree that their actions did, it increased the danger to the people in that map from criminals AND the people not on the map because now they have a much better idea of who does and does not have a gun, in fact I made a whole topic about it."
And you DONT think they are working together? REALLY? Just...happy coincidence for your side.
No I didn't agree to that at all. And when you use the phrase action you make it sound like they are all working together or something.
Funny how when someone uses his or her firearm to prevent or stop a crime the media either ignores such stories or give them only a token mention. The media doesn't plaster the hero's name and photo all over the news. The media doesn't ponder why that person used his firearm to stop or prevent a crime.The media doesn't mention what weapon he or she used to stop those criminals.The media doesn't mention that magazine capacity of that person's weapon. The media doesn't care what hobbies that person has. They media doesn't interview the people he or she saved to ask stupid questions like "are you glad he saved you" or "how are you felling". The doesn't give a soap box to every 2nd amendment advocate saying we need to encourage more firearm ownership or that we need to repeal anti-2nd amendment laws, nor do reporters pondering those questions. If the media isn't working with anti-2ndamendment loons then it must be one hell of a coincidence. Because when someone murders a bunch of people in a mass shooting the media behaves the exact opposite.
The purpose of the press is to publish the W's; Who, What, When, Where, Why, and "What's it mean". This does not mean that the press should have a preference of those W's, IOW ethical journalism presents both sides in a fair manner, the press are information distributors only. Choosing to publish the mass murders and I'm sorry, these are local impact events no matter how disgusting they are while ignoring someone stopping violence is biased, they get to set the message so they have a serious ethical standard. Not publishing defensive use, while publishing offensive misuse, and then calling out people who have done neither but have a permit(this is creating news BTW, big NO-NO) shows where the priorities are in media, and it's disturbing.What does this have to do with the post you quoted?
Also, have you considered that mass shootings get more ratings? That mass shootings anger and motivate people in ways stopping an armed robber in one's home may not?
Maybe it's more likely the "anti-2nd amendment movement" is a shadowy cabal of which "the media," whole and undivided, is just a wing of.
Interesting logic you guys have here.I disagree. some gun hungry robber might well target say a single woman with a gun permit
Interesting logic you guys have here.
First of all, you have the theory that greater gun ownership would reduce crime, suggesting that criminals are deterred when they think the person they are robbing/etc. is a gun owner.
On the other hand, in this scenario, you think these people are more likely to become victims because they are gun owners.
By making this point, you are also suggesting that it is attractive for criminals to arm themselves by robbing legal gun owners -- suggesting that it is difficult to get their hands on guns in easier ways than through crime.
But if that last point is true, it would seem that banning guns would be a good way to stop them from falling into the hands of criminals...
You guys are certainly talking yourselves in circles, aren't you?
Responding to childish bull by partaking in childish bull. Instead of being the better person, right?
And its not like the gun permit owners were at any risk, other than having their privacy violated; the staff of the Journal ARE at risk to having direct revenge taken upon them. Good idea in jeopardising the safety of tonnes of people many people are apparently angry with.
The man who posted this information is as much and idiot at deserves are much scrutiny as those that posted the gun-permit owners' information.
The purpose of the press is to publish the W's; Who, What, When, Where, Why, and "What's it mean". This does not mean that the press should have a preference of those W's, IOW ethical journalism presents both sides in a fair manner, the press are information distributors only. Choosing to publish the mass murders and I'm sorry, these are local impact events no matter how disgusting they are while ignoring someone stopping violence is biased, they get to set the message so they have a serious ethical standard. Not publishing defensive use, while publishing offensive misuse, and then calling out people who have done neither but have a permit(this is creating news BTW, big NO-NO) shows where the priorities are in media, and it's disturbing.
It's not opinion, there's actually an industry standard.Ok so everyone has an opinion on how the media should report things, its important to remember there is no "the media" that all reports and acts the same way. So whats your point? Going back to the original topic, does wanting the media to report differently justify endangering some of their members?
It's not opinion, there's actually an industry standard.
Ahhhhhh...you think they were totally benign and innocent and too stupid to realize what you and apparently everyone else knows. Gotcha.You're missing a key word from your quotation of me, I did not use the word intentionally while you did. I'm not convinced that putting people in danger was their intent, although I do agree that did happen.
But no one is demanding that they live up o their standards.So whats your point? Journalism isn't what it should be? Sure I agree with that.
Ahhhhhh...you think they were totally benign and innocent and too stupid to realize what you and apparently everyone else knows. Gotcha.
But no one is demanding that they live up o their standards.
Nope, if they were then creating the map would not have been a thought, biased reporting wouldn't be a thought, and outright propping up of candidates or parties wouldn't be a thought. Having a media reporting outside of their ethical responsibility is like having a referee with money on a game.No one?
Nope, if they were then creating the map would not have been a thought, biased reporting wouldn't be a thought, and outright propping up of candidates or parties wouldn't be a thought. Having a media reporting outside of their ethical responsibility is like having a referee with money on a game.
The people inside are the problem, people outside don't threaten to stop consuming, well....not entirely true. Paper readership is down, but that is more due to technological advances than anything. My point is that the press is there to inform us, so that we can make the best decisions with all relevant information, the press was never meant to be an agenda machine in free society.O you mean people inside the media not outside? Either way, whats your point that you are driving at.
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?