A Guy Now On CNN Just Criticized The NY Newspaper That Published Names/Addresses Of Gun Owners By...

[global1]

saying in response to the anchor - when she said that "this is public info and anyone can get the info if they go through the trouble and the paper just made it easier" he said something to the effect that "our forefathers didn't anticipate google earth to make it easier".

I understand his argument on the addresses and google earth - but on the other hand when our forefathers wrote the 2A - they didn't anticipate semi-automatic and automatic weapons and clips/magazines that hold multiple bullets.

So if I understand it right - gun owners can use the google earth argument/technology to defend not having their names and addresses published in a newspaper - but those people that are concerned with these highly powered weapons of destruction can't use the same argument when talking about not wanting these weapons/technology used.

What's wrong with this picture?

[RomneyLies]

1. But, but, but we NEEDS THE PRECIOUS

because FREEDOM!!!

[BlueStreak]

4. What does any honest, responsible gun owner have to hide?

[slackmaster]

5. I enjoy controlling the impression I make on nosey people

[crazyjoe]

45. HA!!, I knew some nitwit would say that, didn't think it would only take 4 posts though.

[BlueStreak]

48. Well, answwer the question then. What do you have to hide.

The Constitution may give you a right to have a musket. It most certainly does not grant you the "right" to do it in secret.

[rrneck]

76. I think there's a little fourth amentment left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]

Nobody has to prove they have anything to hide. The state has to prove that whatever they have or have done is illegal that would warrant hiding.

[BlueStreak]

81. This is neither a search nor a seizure. Again, what do you have to hide?

[rrneck]

82. Searches are conducted to secure incriminating evidence. Seizures secure the evidence.

What right do you have to ask me what I have to hide? Why should I care what you want to know?

[BlueStreak]

94. It is public record ...

what kind of car I have.

who holds my mortgage

any liens on my property

any bankruptcies

and criminal record.

What basis do you have for claiming that your neighbors don't have a right to know if your house is full of killing machines?

[rrneck]

111. I don't have to make such a claim.

Prove I am a danger.

[BlueStreak]

113. If you have a gun, you are, by definition, a danger

Guns are inherently dangerous. They are designed to be destructive. That's what they are. That's what they do.

A well-trained, mentally stable gun holder is LESS DANGEROUS than a psycho with a gun, but you are still dangerous nonetheless.

[rrneck]

114. Prove it. nt

[crazyjoe]

140. based on your attitude, you must of been a patriot act supporter.

after all, what's the problem if you have nothing to hide?

[arely staircase]

125. her gun from burglars

who now know that she has one and just have to wait for her to leave - and its free gun for a felon time.

[global1]

7. I Hope You Understand That I'm All For Publishing This Information ......

I think it was a great service that this paper did for their community and would urge other newspapers to do the same. What I was criticizing was the apparent hypocrisy that said that our forefathers didn't anticipate the technology of 'google earth' to make it easy for access to this information. Using the technology argument when it comes to protecting 'gun owners'. Yet when we use the same argument about the 2A - that the forefathers didn't anticipate the type of weapons we have now compared to the muskets of then - the gun owners don't buy that argument.

[slackmaster]

8. The FFs didn't anticipate computers or the Internet either, yet the First Amendment still applies.

[hack89]

53. So all government data should be published? Like names of people receiving public assistance?

or is there some information that should not be published?

[abelenkpe]

58. All kinds of information is readily available

Everytime someone buys a home that info is in the paper. This is just another list useful to those who want to avoid homes with weapons in them.

[hack89]

64. So lists of people on public assistance should be in the paper? nt

[abelenkpe]

67. I don't know are they?

Lists of gun owners are useful for those who wish to protect their children from being around weapons. Do we need to protect people from those on assistance? I think not. Why are you afraid of declaring your ownership of dangerous weapons?

[hack89]

69. Is there any limit on what personal information the government can publish?

Can you answer the question?

I won't have to worry about declaring my guns - there is no registration in my state. My guns are invisible to the state and to you.

[abelenkpe]

71. I answered your question

as a parent I want to know if there are guns in the home of the people who my kids spend time with as a matter of safety. What's wrong with being able to make an informed decision about those I spend time with? I personally find your equating this with those on assistance to be despicable.

Why are you afraid of the government? Why are you afraid to admit you own weapons?

[hack89]

72. You must have loved the Patriot Act and the Terrorist watch list.

after all, we know that we have nothing to fear from the government.

I am not afraid to admit I have weapons. Most of my friends and neighbors are well aware to them. They just don't care.

[hack89]

73. What is wrong with the notion that all public information should be public?

why should some information be in the papers but not other information?

Why are you scared of total transparency?

[abelenkpe]

78. When did I say I was afraid of total transparency?

You're the one who doesn't want to reveal that you own a potentially dangerous weapon. I said I don't know if people on assistance are listed publicly and don't understand why you would pick them to equate to your gun ownership. Look, your arguments in this thread are completely illogical. I understand you are passionate about your weapons. I'm not advocating taking them away. I'm saying I welcome information that will help me make informed decisions that will help me keep my kids safe. Why is that threatening to you? Children die from finding guns in homes all the time. My husbands good friend died that way. It is a matter of public safety.

[hack89]

80. So any information on any potential threat is your standard?

should I be able to determine where all people with DUI's live? People be treated for alchohol and drug abuse? Domestic violence arrests? People with a history of psychotic outbursts?

If that data was available it should be in the paper so I can make reasonable choices on who to avoid?

Why do you think I feel threatened? My guns are not registered. There is no way for that information to become public knowledge.

I am just curious how much of the surveillance state you are willing to embrace. Since we know the government is nothing to fear, Patriot Act not withstanding. Or do you support the Patriot Act because it makes you safer?

[abelenkpe]

86. OMG

No where did I say I support the patriot act. You can already find out if people have dui's or a history of alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence arrests, any type of arrest. Why shouldn't we know about your guns?

[randome]

89. Publishing the address of someone who might be hiding from an abusive spouse is one reason.

Bulk publishing of this info was not wise. You already have the capability of searching for public records yet apparently no one ever bothered.

[hack89]

93. No you can't.

there is no database I can go to that will tell me all the people that have dui's or a history of alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence arrests, any type of arrest. It doesn't exist.

You trust the government. I don't - and the Patriot Act is one reason why. The government cannot be trusted to use personal information in a benign manner. Sorry my point was too subtle for you.

[abelenkpe]

98. Yes you can

people have been fired over dui's they received years ago. A coworker here just got laid off for not disclosing a prior dui. You can look up people criminal records. That information is available. It's just information. I'd be much more concerned with what corporations do with that information than the government. Say you're discriminated against for owning weapons and therefore unable to get a job? Who would defend you and point out the illegality of such a situation? The government. You are allowed to have a gun. Registering it and having it be public knowledge shouldn't be threatening.

[hack89]

99. If my guns were not registered

then I would not have to worry about people like you discriminating against me, now would I? You just stated a perfect reason for keeping gun ownership private.

[abelenkpe]

109. You are on a public board talking about the unregistered guns you own

do you honestly think people can't trace your identity?

[hack89]

122. Only with a warrant

you couldn't and that is all I care about.

Absolute privacy is impossible in a digital age. But we can make it as hard as possible for private information to become public.

[Lizzie Poppet]

124. I'll be happy to do that.

There is no registration requirement where I live.

[bongbong]

84. Some Delicate Flowers

Are too delicate to answer questions, altho they never tire of asking them.

[abelenkpe]

87. You need to take some basic reading comprehension classes

you're response supports the idea that gun advocates have subpar intelligence.

[bongbong]

100. LOL

> you're response

Oh, the HILARIOUS irony that pretty much every post from Delicate Flowers includes.

[RantinRavin]

112. If you want to know

why don't you just ask the person, instead of relying on someone else to publish it?

[abelenkpe]

117. I do

I actually think it was a shitty thing for the newspaper to publish it the way they did. They only did that to shock people. That information was available if someone wanted to go looking for it. The only reason the paper published it is because there is a lot of noise being made to pass laws to make gun tragedies less frequent. I'm not one who is advocating for taking people's guns away. But recognize that laws will most likely be passed to register guns and increase safety. It's not surprising given today's technology that someone would create searchable lists for gun owners as they do for pretty much everything else under the sun. All I said was I'd welcome the additional information because it would cross off that one question when arranging time at other kids homes. I don't really see what the big deal is with registering guns or being open about owning one. It is legal.

[reteachinwi]

79. Recall petition signers

we're made public in Wisconsin. The purpose was intimidation. Our current Superintendent of Education signed a recall petition and there is an attempt to make an issue of it. Good for the goose, good for the gander? Rodney King's reaction to LA's riots comes to mind.

[aandegoons]

11. Hey they publish sexual preditors list.

What the heck is the difference? It's a public service.

[slackmaster]

12. There are many Web sites where you can get that informatoin

Knock yourself out.

[aandegoons]

13. As there also should be for gun hoarders.

Your arms tired yet?

[slackmaster]

15. Your false equivalency is an epic fail. Collecting guns isn't a crime.

I even have a federal firearms license to help build my collection. My background has been scrutinized by the FBI. I've been fingerprinted. My local police chief gets notified whenever I renew my license.

[aandegoons]

24. And sexual preditors already paid for their crime.

If you carry water for the NRA you are a murderer in all respects.

[slackmaster]

29. If you carry water for sexual predators, you too are a sexual predator

In all respects.

[aandegoons]

37. Interesting.

As a gun nutter don't you have something better to add. Not in your list of NRA talking points?

[crazyjoe]

46. something better? I thought that was perfect :-)

[Jenoch]

52. You are wrong.

Part of the penalty for being convicted of a 'sexual' crime is to be registered and publicly identified as a sexual predator.

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. Sexual predators are criminals.

That's the difference.

[aandegoons]

25. They already paid for their crime.

They are criminals no more.

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. And the likelihood of them re-offending is very high

[RomneyLies]

30. And the liklihood that legally obtained guns will be used to kill innocent people is also high

Happened thousands of times last year.

[X_Digger]

65. Of 300,000,000 guns, there were 8,583 firearms used to kill people in 2011.

That works out to one fiftieth of one percent. (0.002%).

If you consider that likelihood 'high', I have to question your logic.

[bongbong]

85. Nice deflection

But transparent.

Let's see the stats for injured but not killed by a Delicate Flower.

Let's also see the stats for intimidation & bullying facilitated by a Delicate Flower's Precious.

Then let's see the stats and costs of psychological damage done to children or others by Delicate Flowers wielding guns.

You Delicate Flowers and your worship of Precious never stop amazing me. Like studying Abnormal Psychology.

[X_Digger]

95. I addressed what the poster actually said.

Not what you think he should have said, or what you think he meant.

You be sure to cite those stats you mentioned, eh?

[bongbong]

102. LOL

> I addressed what the poster actually said.

Yes, with misleading stats...misleading because deaths are only the tip of the iceberg of the tremendous damage that guns cause to America.

> You be sure to cite those stats you mentioned, eh?

I'm not a Delicate Flower trying to prove that guns are like the 2nd Coming, only better.

[X_Digger]

105. Damn those pesky misleading facts getting in the way of a good rant.

You be sure to start an OP with your stats.

[bongbong]

107. Agreed

> Damn those pesky misleading facts getting in the way of a good rant.

Yes, I hate when Delicate Flowers post misleading tripe about how "harmless" their Precious is.

[X_Digger]

108. Got a link to your OP yet? n/t

[bongbong]

116. My OP?

You mean the one showing the links between mental illness and gun-humping?

[X_Digger]

118. Yes, your 'tip of the iceberg' post with the 'twue' stats.

Feel free to start it.

[bongbong]

120. You'll be the first to know!

it's hard for me to start threads about guns. I'm banned from your home (the gungeon).

Maybe you should start a petition to have me un-banned, like other Delicate Flowers did for rDigital.

Oh, wait, he's gone, isn't he? He was revealed to be a repig plant. Amazing "liberals" that the DU Delicate Flowers stand up for....

[Jackpine Radical]

31. How high?

What does the scientific literature say about the sex offense recidivism rate? Do you know?

[BlueStreak]

49. How high is high enough?

Society has a right to insist on safety. If 50% of the gun owners eventually commit a crime or have a tragic accident with their weapons, is that enough to require transparency?

If 1% do, is that enough?

What about 0.1%?

What do you think is the point where your neighbors have the right to understand what weapons you are harboring next door?

[Jackpine Radical]

50. My question had nothing to do with guns.

I was asking about the recidivism rate among sex offenders.

We all want to eliminate sex offenses. However, I suspect, that, to large extent, the sex offender lists, notifications, etc. actually raise the likelihood of recidivism.
For example, I should think it would be very difficult to get a job or even find a place to live once you have been placed on a list. For example, try to find a place to live that is not within 1000 feet of a school, church, playground, or whatever. I would imagine that being on the list subjects offenders who have served their time to a whole host of economic, physical and psychological stresses that would increase their likelihood of re-offending. Is there evidence that the lists etc. have actually made us safer?

The person to whom I addressed the question said recidivism is high. I would like the reference for that statement.

[X_Digger]

60. I assume you've looked at the numbers, too?

It's amazing what passes for common wisdom-- that actually isn't true.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Recidivism

[Jackpine Radical]

119. Yes, I'm pretty much up to date on all that.

Sex offenders are the latest variety of demons being used to push new social control laws on us, in this case preventive detention in the form of Sexually Violent Person commitment laws, which have been enacted in 20 states and the Federal Government (Adam Walsh Act). Just like they used the drug laws to acquire the right to break down doors & fears of terrorism to ram through the Patriot Act. How long before they extend preventive detention to "eco-terrorists" & "violent anarchist protestors" like OWS? But people refuse to see it.

The last time I tried to discuss this on DU I got treated to an online bastinado and everyone was totally deaf to my point.

[X_Digger]

121. You have my full support, for whatever value it serves.

The last time I posted about NYC's "stop and frisk", and the inherently racial application of such an odious fourth amendment violation, the OP sank like a stone.

[aandegoons]

35. As is the likely hood of a gun nutter gunning down children.

Lets face it someone who already has the blood of thousands on their hands supporting NRA talking points or believes someones life is worth an I-phone does not have very far to go to pulling the trigger on some child.

[11 Bravo]

47. I'm curious. Is "painfully stupid" just an expression, or are you actually in some discomfort?

[Jenoch]

54. See post #52.

It would also be a good idea if you would learn something about a law before you post your opinion about that particular law.

[slackmaster]

74. That is not accurate. Part of the penaly for a sex crime conviction is having to register.

If you don't want to have that happen, don't commit a sex crime.

[Skittles]

77. being a sexual predator is against the law

that is one heck of a difference

[BlueStreak]

3. Like the sexual predator's list

If our government cannot protect us from crazy people who have a damned arsenal in their homes, I would really appreciate the ability to find out myself. If I knew my neighbor had a bunch of near-machine guns in his house, that would certainly affect how I dealt with him, and might be a factor in a decision to move to a place with a bit more distance between me and the crazy.

If a person knows that the family down the street has 3 revolvers and 4 rifles, maybe it would be wise to not permit their kids to play at that house.

And if people know that their gun habits are known, that would be a powerful incentive for them to make it very clear to their neighbors that they are extremely responsible, always keeping their weapons and ammo safely locked up. Even if they don't care about their standing in the community, at least they would have an incentive to keep the weapons well secured in case of burglaries.

And if a responsible gun owner has a couple of sensible weapons in his home, a smart burglar would check that list and decide that might not be a good place to break in. If a person wants to own weapons of great value, maybe he should belong to a gun club that has a highly secure storage facility rather than keeping the things in his home.

[billh58]

9. But there you go again

spouting common sense and making valid points. The 2nd Amendment gives me the right to bypass anything that makes sense and do as I damn please! And I can damned well do it in secret and conceal my love of guns from my nosy neighbors because the Constitution says I can.

Don't you anti-gun people know anything?

(And, if necessary for those visiting from the Gungeon)...

[jp76]

26. Don't let the kids play at the house?

I wouldn't let my kids play at ANY house whose parents I didn't know and trust.

You want to play at Timmy's house? Let's check the website...okay, not a documented sexual predator, no documented guns. Sure, sweetie, go have fun!

Pay no mind to the fact that Timmy's dad is a convicted meth dealer recently out of prison.

Just a hypothetical, calm down, Timmy.

[billh58]

43. And another recruit

from the NRA Rapid Response Team is heard from. Did your buddies over at the Gungeon tell you what to say, and exactly how to say it?

If the house has guns, most responsible adults would not go near it, nor would they let their kids play there.

[Jenoch]

56. In situations where children

get a family gun and misuse it, it frequently is the neighbor kid that is at fault because he has not been taught about the dangers of guns. I grew up in a time before it was common to lock up the guns. They were hanging on the wall. I had to stop one of my friends from messing with them. His parents were opposed to guns.

[BlueStreak]

139. "The neighbor's kid at fault"? Surely you didn't mean that

Surely we can all agree that the gun owner bears 100% of the responsibility for what happens with their guns.

Considering how many children are killed every year by irresponsible gun owners, I'd think all responsible gun owners would be in favor of the toughest regulations, so as not to have the public turn against ALL gun owners.

[HappyMe]

6. I'm really not sure how I feel about this.

To me, this may just be a hop, skip and a jump to all sorts of 'lists' being published.

[csziggy]

23. I live in Florida, with the Sunshine Law

Just about anything is available online, even more at the state and county offices if I go in person. I can look up every detail about my neighbors' mortgages, property assessment, and taxes. I can look up their divorce records, and details of any lawsuits they may have been involved in. I can look up sexual predators and research their history to find why they are on the list. Often I can look at court documents while a case is being prosecuted, or even before the trial begins as information comes out through discovery.

But here I am NOT allowed to find out which neighbors have concealed carry permits. Florida does not register guns so there is no database for me to check on neighbors who might hoard guns. I find it very ironic that I cannot know who near me might be paranoid enough to think they need to carry constantly in this very safe neighborhood when everything else is out in the sunshine.

[HappyMe]

28. I think it's all creepy.

I think it's kind of paranoid to look up someone on a list. If you find a neighbor's name on the list, what are you going to do then?

[csziggy]

39. Given where I live, I am used to seeing open carry

I worry more about the concealed carry people.

I've chased poachers off my farm when I was unarmed and they had rifles - I never felt threatened by those people. On the other hand, when I was in a crowd and realized the guy standing beside me had an underarm holster, I was scared and left immediately.

He may have had a CCP, I don't know, but there was no reason in that group of people for anyone to have a gun other than paranoia.

[HappyMe]

41. I just don't worry enough about it

to wonder if there is a gun in every jacket or purse. I'm just not paranoid enough to wonder who that person is or why they have a gun.
There's enough paranoia on both sides of this issue.

[csziggy]

62. I don't like being around a gun with no apparent purpose

A hunter carrying a gun has a purpose for it. A cop carrying a gun has a purpose for it.

Some random person in a friendly crowd has no obvious purpose for carrying a gun, IMO. I don't consider it paranoia to be concerned about that.

[HappyMe]

70. If it's 'concealed carry' then there isn't

really any way you are going to know for sure who has one or not. Off duty cops carry their guns sometimes. So, anyone with their hands in their pockets is suspicious, what about women with those suitcases that they call 'purses'?

I just refuse to worry or be concerned about it. I'm not going to let this change the way I perceive people or how I deal with them. I'm not going to stay home.

How do you know that someone's published name isn't a woman who purchased a gun for her safety. Her abuser now has her name and address. I guess as long as she stays out of 'friendly crowds' it's okay.

[Sadiedog]

92. Yes, thank you for that.

This womans safety has now been compromised!

[Jenoch]

59. The Clackamas, Oregon mall shooter killed

himself after seeing a 22 year old CCW permit holder with his pistol out.

[NeedleCast]

10. Curious

If you were a liberal in a red state, how comfortable would you be with the local conservative rag paper publishing the addresses of registered Democrats?

[csziggy]

40. In Florida, that information is public

ANYONE could publish lists of one party or another. No big deal.

[billh58]

55. Very comfortable, and

in fact proud. I would volunteer that information in a heart beat. Why do you ask?

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. I'm not a gun owner and I don't agree with what that newspaper did.

[slackmaster]

16. With rights come responsibilities; with actions come consequences.

That paper didn't technically do anything wrong, but they'll pay for what they did.

[RomneyLies]

32. Most ironic post of the year

The same could be said of every person who purchases a gun.

[slackmaster]

36. I keep my guns locked up

No irony here at all, just ignorance and bigotry.

[Jackpine Radical]

33. They technically didn't do anything ILLEGAL.

"Wrong" is a different matter.

[randome]

17. It was a dumb stunt, wasn't it?

No one thought it through. What were people expected to do? Shun anyone who owns a gun? There was no public service provided with this information.

[HockeyMom]

18. I have been fingerprinted

and you can go online and check my name. I have a criminal record? No, I have been cleared by the FBI to work in Public Schools and Day Hab/Group Homes. It is considered in the public domain. I freely chose this employment. Gun owners freely chose to own a gun. Where is the difference in privacy rights?

[Honeycombe8]

20. I don't think anyone is saying it's not legal. They are talking about ethical. nt

[reteachinwi]

88. My teaching license renewal

required me to file two sets of fingerprints, one with the Department of Public Instruction and one with the FBI. I always felt I was proving I wasn't a criminal.

[Honeycombe8]

19. So your argument is that technology can be used to bolster prior amendments....

whether it's used to bolster the 2nd amendment, or the 1st amendment. Whether you're talking about owning assault weapons, or posting lists gathered through technology from various sources.

[Honeycombe8]

21. The list is only of those who bought guns legally in recent years?

The list won't include people who've owned guns for years, criminals, people who bought guns privately from other individuals.

So publishing a list of law abiding citizens who purchased a gun in recent years? Not cool. Legal, but not cool.

[99Forever]

34. In order to get a private kennel license..

.. we had our particulars published 3 times in the paper, had 4 public hearings with the planning dept. had a large sign placed on the front of our property for 3 months, laid out over $1500 in fees, building permits and upgrades to our property, and had to pass a building inspectors inspections.


You fuckers want to have deadly weapons in your house and now you are whining because it is made public knowledge? Cry me a fucking river.

[reteachinwi]

90. +1

[jp76]

38. Checks and Balances

Keep in mind that the 1st and 2nd Amendments were both balances against government power.

The 1st prevents the government from controlling the populace through disinformation (and note that we've had to enact the FOIA to bolster that protection, and we probably need to do more). No advance in technology alters the purpose of this amendment.

The 2nd, whether you look at it as a state's right to a militia, or as an individual right, or both, is a protection against the government controlling the populace through force. This is indisputable, read the Federalist papers #29 and #46 if you disagree. As such, the 2nd is rendered impotent if the protections afforded by it do not extend to modern weaponry. No advance in technology alters the purpose of this amendment.

[billh58]

44. Ah, and here it comes.

"Indisputable" facts right from Wayne LePew's talking points memo. We need big strong men with guns to protect us from our scary democratic government, and our own all-volunteer military made up of neighbors, relatives, and friends. And the founders were well aware that a paltry 30,000 deaths a year was a cheap price to pay for protecting our right to carry a fucking gun.

Go back to the Gungeon and spout your right-wing bullshit there with the rest of your neocon buddies.

[Arcanetrance]

42. I've been of two minds on this and still don't know how I feel

On one hand I like the idea of knowing who around me owns weapons. But on the other hand I worry about the precedent it may set in some places I have been that are very Republican you start seeing those liberal hunting bumper stickers say a newspaper there was to publish the names of local liberals and some idiot decided to round up people and Institute mob justice for what he sees is wrong.So as I said opening this I really don't know how to feel

[villager]

51. the usual rank hypocrisy of the gun apologist

The bigger shock would be if it were somehow absent.

[SeattleVet]

57. Unfortunately, this can be a batterer/stalker's dream database.

I feel very sorry for any of the women who have moved several times to avoid their batterer/stalker, and who have obtained a handgun for protection from them. Publication of this database just made it very easy for the abusive partner to find someone who may have been essentially in hiding for the past several years.

Rockland County also has a high number of retired NYC/Westchester police and judges. There just might be a released felon or 10 who have a little bone to pick.

Way to go, Journal News! You just put a lot of people's lives in danger. They could have made their point about the numbers/distribution of handgun permits just as well with an aggregate listing of the numbers of permits in a given area without placing individuals in harm's way. There was absolutely no reason to make a linked database giving information on each individual.

[HappyMe]

63. Thank you.

Hopefully, this alone would be reason enough to stop this.

[HockeyMom]

104. You can get a person's address and phone number online

If they are current or retired police, is it really a stretch to think they probably own a gun?

[Jenoch]

61. The newspaper reporter

had to use FOI to get the list of registered gun owners, so I don't know how 'public' the information was prior to the publication by the newspaper.

If I was on the list and a burglar broke into my home I would sue the publisher of that newspaper personally.

[99Forever]

66. That changes nothing.

It is by definition public information, FOI a Constitutionally protected right, BTW Funny how you gun people that scream bloody murder about your 2nd Amend rights, but are you first ones to walk all over someone elses.


Good luck with that lawsuit.

[Jenoch]

126. Since I don't live in New York

I don't thnk it will ever happen. I do thank you for wishing me luck however.

[treestar]

68. People seem to have trouble with the concept

Public records are public. Anyone can publish them any time. Anyone can go to the applicable office and look them up.

If you own a house, that is a public record. I LOL at people thinking they could make the deed records private. Or that they should be.

Some things are just public. Don't be involved in them at all if you're such a private person you don't want anyone to know.

[slackmaster]

75. It is possible to keep your name out of public property records. I know a man who did that...

...after he won a big lottery prize. It involved creating a trust with a cryptic name and buying the house under the name of the trust.

But for most people, that is not a realistic possibility.

[treestar]

131. Trusts, estates and corporations can own property

That means the trust owns the property, not the man. That has its own set of issues. But it's still public who owns the property, the entity of the trust does.

[bongbong]

83. I've no idea why the Delicate Flowers are so upset

Well, besides their usual uber-sensitivity and hurt feelings about anybody who doesn't equate their Precious with gold-encrusted unicorns.

But I would think Delicate Flowers would encourage articles like that. Then they get a chance to play out one of their most cherished fantasies - the Rambo Syndrome.

"Hey, what's that noise? Hey, who are you? WHAT IS THIS? A gang of gang-bangers, dozens of them, standing in my living room, lusting after my PS3!!! And they're all armed, too! Well, I'll get my rugged BUSHMASTER out and mow them down! Can you guys wait a minute?"

(Delicate Flower rummages thru his sock drawer for his assault rifle)

"OK, I'm ready! Start firing all your guns at me! Us Rambos know that bullets bounce off him!"

[slackmaster]

91. Has it ever occurred to you that some of those several thousand people could be crime victims?

Abused women, people who have been stalked and harassed, whose residences were not known to their assailants until the nitwits published those pin maps?

Or would that be acceptable collateral damage in your crusade against gun owners?

[BlueStreak]

96. I thought gun owners were honest law-abiding people.

You really can't have the argument both ways.

Either gun ownership is a danger to the public or it isn't.

[slackmaster]

97. Dangerous people are a danger to the public

Guns are just tools that can be used for good or evil.

[BlueStreak]

103. Very few murderers DON'T have guns, so I hope you can see why it is relevant

for us to know who has guns.

If that means that non-murderous gun owners are inconvenienced a little, sorry, you get no sympathy for me. That's the cost of living in a civil society. If you want to live in the Yukon and shoot and trap for your food, then I have no need to know about your gun collection. But if you live 50 feet from me and come into regular contact with my children, I need to know.

[slackmaster]

127. Very few people who DO have legally owned guns ever commit murder or any other violent crime

[BlueStreak]

128. Very few people who have cars crash into a school bus killing 50 children

but we still require licenses, driving tests and vehicle registration.

[bongbong]

101. Facts

> Abused women, people who have been stalked and harassed, whose residences were not known to their assailants until the nitwits published those pin maps?

Statistics prove that you're safer without a gun, and that's even if you're a previous crime victim.

Oh, those PESKY facts.

[BlueStreak]

106. For example, take the NRA idea to arm all school teachers

OK. That is about 3 million classrooms where the teacher would have a loaded firearm. Please rank these outcomes in terms of statistical likelihood:

A) The teacher uses the firearm to shoot dead a potential mass murderer, thereby saving lives

B) A mass murderer appears at the school and teachers shoot wildly, causing more innocent people to die

C) A student gets hold of the gun and shoots the teacher, another student, or himself

D) A parent, knowing that the teacher is armed, comes to a parent conference packing a weapon himself and a gunfight breaks out between parent and teacher

E) The teacher, frustrated with all the pressures of the job, "goes postal" killing students or other faculty.

[bongbong]

115. Agreed

The "idea" is totally from Fantasyland. It's only designed to sell more guns and divert attention from gun control.

But the "hidden bonus" for the NRA is that it would increase fear if enacted, and cause even more collateral gun sales.

[BlueStreak]

129. To answer my own question, here is how I would rank those outcomes

MOST LIKELY -- Would happen hundreds, if not thousands, of times each year. Remember there are 3 million classrooms.

C) A student gets hold of the gun and shoots the teacher, another student, or himself


LESS LIKELY -- but would still happen many times each year

D) A parent, knowing that the teacher is armed, comes to a parent conference packing a weapon himself and a gunfight breaks out between parent and teacher

E) The teacher, frustrated with all the pressures of the job, "goes postal" killing students or other faculty.


HIGHLY UNLIKELY -- might happen about one time a year

B) A mass murderer appears at the school and teachers shoot wildly, causing more innocent people to die


LEAST LIKELY -- as in, will probably never happen in my lifetime

A) The teacher uses the firearm to shoot dead a potential mass murderer, thereby saving lives

[Nevernose]

130. Then perhaps they shouldn't have voluntarily released that information publicly?

Then perhaps they shouldn't have voluntarily released that information publicly? Because the paperwork in NY clearly states that all of the registration information is public and public ally available. Same as their voter information.

[slackmaster]

132. Are you suggesting that people in that category should have not gotten permits for their guns?

That would be illegal.

But you do make a good case against gun registration and permits.

[Marrah_G]

110. My issue with the list is this:

If you post a list of names and addresses it makes it very easy for criminals to know which houses to steal guns from.

[cantbeserious]

123. Our Forefathers Did Not Anticipate Semi Automatic Weapons And The Gun Enabler Clan Called The NRA

eom

[slackmaster]

133. The First Amendment was written at a time when nobody anticipated computers or the Internet

But it's still the law of the land.

[cantbeserious]

134. False Equivalency - Nice Try Using The NRA Talking Point

eom

[slackmaster]

135. If a very clever gunsmith in the 1780s had managed to craft a semiautomatic breech-loader...

He or she would have been hailed as a national hero.

[cantbeserious]

136. Times Change - Still False Equivalency i.e. Misdirection - More NRA Nonsense

eom

[Tsiyu]

137. You make an excellent point

Selective historical analysis....

I'm curious what Scalia will do. After all, he takes the "originalist" position that we should interpret the Constitution as it was written in the late 18th century, as the framers saw things.

I don't think they saw any bushmasters or AK-47s back then.

Will Scalia rule we can only have muskets? Nope. He's already abandoned his "originalist" doctrine when it comes to guns.

This constitutional cherry picking is so goddamned transparent all around.

[AverageJoe90]

138. I heard about this.

I'm sorry, but this whole thing, releasing all those people's names, was just stupid. Okay?

With that said, though, indeed, something IS wrong with the picture.....

[crazyjoe]

141. "they didn't anticipate semi-automatic and automatic weapons and clips/magazines that hold multiple"

I do not buy for a second this statement which is considered to be fact by many. These guys were not stupid, many were brilliant scholars and inventors, why would they think that nobody would ever invent a gun that didn't have to be hand loaded with black powder. Or that could fire multiple rounds quickly(like a Gatling gun for example).
I have not seen anyone challenge this ridiculous statement, and i do think it's ridiculous.