How would you feel if...

[Pogo]

The stupid broad is the woman who ran the story, the publisher/editor of the Journal.

As for evidence? Why else did this stupid broad invade those people's privacy? Whether or not it was her intention, it is a consequence of her actions.

As for who's doing the shooting? Well, you are assuming that the theives are stupid enough to break in when someone is home. I'm not making that assumption.

Immie

You threw me for a loop. I thought the newspaper ran the listings. Whatever.

I don't know if you came in late to this story but what they printed was already public record. So "invasion of privacy" doesn't exist. As for the estranged spouse scenario, we covered that a while back too, which is why I didn't copy that part of the quote: anyone who's got a restraining order should have their address protected by it. Finally the thieves breaking in to whichever houses is still all speculation. It's not reality. Speculation isn't valid as a cause-and-effect when no such thing has happened. Theories of what might happen are a dime a dozen.

So my question still stands unmolested: given that the lists of CC permit holders is already public record, and given that the ownership of firearms is the bee's knees, the ultimate patriot porn, the sacrosanct culmination of all that is Merka ..... why should the holders of said firearms be ashamed of it?

Actually my understanding is that it required the Freedom of Information Act to get the information, something that just anyone i.e. a theif perusing the county courthouse would not have had easy access (if any at all) to. So, this stupid broad has as I said aided and abetted criminals in providing them with the information as to what homes have registered weapons.

Also, you have no idea whether or not such a thing has happened or if it will in the future. Neither one of us do. You can no more positively say it has not nor will it happen than I can say it has or will.

Secondly, whether or not a theif actually uses or even cares about the information is immaterial. She provided it to theives and liberals in general for her political agenda.

And finally, as has already been stated, they are not ashamed of having firearms. They are fearful of having been exposed as targets by a stupid broad who has literally put them in harm's way, just as those abortionists feared being made targets when their personal, not to mention highly public, names and addresses were posted on the internet. She recklessly endangered these law abiding individuals and should suffer the consequences of her actions.

Immie

We've just gone in a complete circle.

"Protected" from whom, if they're already the ones with the guns...
Speculation on what might happen is just that; no history....
"Harm's way" in what way, "Endangered" how, etc etc...
"consequences" of already public information...?

We did this already, and I asked the same questions. What's the point asking them all over again?

Once again, maybe this really is unanswerable --- when you 'retaliate' against something publicly revealed, you must have had some reason you wanted that kept hidden. Even though it's already public.

 

[RoadVirus]

Apparently one round of controversy wasn't good enough for this newspaper because they are going for Round Two:

(Reuters) - A suburban New York newspaper that sparked an uproar among gun enthusiasts by publishing names and addresses of residents holding pistol permits is now planning to publish even more identities of permit-toting locals.

-SNIP-

The next batch of names will be permit holders in suburban Putnam County, New York, where the county clerk told the newspaper it is still compiling information.

-SNIP-

Republican state Senator Greg Ball of Patterson, New York, said he planned to introduce legislation to keep permit information private except to prosecutors and police.

New York newspaper to list more gun permit holders after uproar | Reuters

I'm all for Freedom of the Press and such, but this is off-the-wall hack journalism and the newspaper should have it's license or whatever pulled.

 

[koshergrl]

The holders of firearms aren't ashamed of it, Immie, as you know, you dishonest hack. They are afraid of being targeted by left wing wackos who do things like call for the deaths of all NRA members.

Take your anti-American bullshit and shove it up your ass. Nobody is amused by or fooled by your pretense that there is absolutely no harm intended by the pigs who did it. And it's perfectly obvious that you are 100 percent fine with intimidation tactics.

Which is why we won't be giving up our weapons.

 

[gallantwarrior]

You're asking about why an emotion exist. Why not ask about why unicorns shit rainbows?

You should ask why supposedly free people have to register anything with the government, guns, cars, boats, your location from your cellphone, you're house, dinner reservations, when you can get married, etc... Not to mention why you have to pay a government tribute each time you do or we lock you in a cage like some sort of rabid animal.

Statists believe government is the highest power in the universe, and must be loved and feared.

Or at least feared.

 

[LibertyLemming]

You're asking about why an emotion exist. Why not ask about why unicorns shit rainbows?

You should ask why supposedly free people have to register anything with the government, guns, cars, boats, your location from your cellphone, you're house, dinner reservations, when you can get married, etc... Not to mention why you have to pay a government tribute each time you do or we lock you in a cage like some sort of rabid animal.

Statists believe government is the highest power in the universe, and must be loved and feared.

Or at least feared.

They defend it like a slandered family member at a Sunday morning church brunch. Sounds like love. Sounds like blind faith. Statists are like the religious. Avoid the Killer B's that lead to most death and destruction in this world. B for Belonging. B for Belief.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Did you ever think theyre not ashamed but that enjoy some modicum of privacy which was lost when their addresses were posted for all to know without going through the effort themselves.

Either way, I'm sure it's not big of a deal. I'm not sure the author will be nominated for any Nobel or Pulitzer prizes any time soon but I could be wrong.

Assuming youre antigun the real question is why you feel the need to conscript the nation to your personal proclivities ?

Hey, I'm just observing. The list the paper published is already public info, so I don't see a privacy issue, but what I'm observing is the revenge reaction when somebody else published the personal info of the paper's personnel. They all acted like the original posting of gun permits was letting out some kind of shameful secret, like it was a video of them skulking into a porn shop. So I'm asking where that sense of shame comes from. Because if you really were proud of it there would be no "retaliation".

It's a question of human psychology and whether people really say what they mean, and if not, what they do mean.

I think you're the first to actually address the question on its own merits. I think I brought it up at least three days ago. That time lapse tells me something too.

Why should that bother you any more than any other publically available information? Motive should be irrelevant. It is public info.

 

[gallantwarrior]

You threw me for a loop. I thought the newspaper ran the listings. Whatever.

I don't know if you came in late to this story but what they printed was already public record. So "invasion of privacy" doesn't exist. As for the estranged spouse scenario, we covered that a while back too, which is why I didn't copy that part of the quote: anyone who's got a restraining order should have their address protected by it. Finally the thieves breaking in to whichever houses is still all speculation. It's not reality. Speculation isn't valid as a cause-and-effect when no such thing has happened. Theories of what might happen are a dime a dozen.

So my question still stands unmolested: given that the lists of CC permit holders is already public record, and given that the ownership of firearms is the bee's knees, the ultimate patriot porn, the sacrosanct culmination of all that is Merka ..... why should the holders of said firearms be ashamed of it?

Actually my understanding is that it required the Freedom of Information Act to get the information, something that just anyone i.e. a theif perusing the county courthouse would not have had easy access (if any at all) to. So, this stupid broad has as I said aided and abetted criminals in providing them with the information as to what homes have registered weapons.

Also, you have no idea whether or not such a thing has happened or if it will in the future. Neither one of us do. You can no more positively say it has not nor will it happen than I can say it has or will.

Secondly, whether or not a theif actually uses or even cares about the information is immaterial. She provided it to theives and liberals in general for her political agenda.

And finally, as has already been stated, they are not ashamed of having firearms. They are fearful of having been exposed as targets by a stupid broad who has literally put them in harm's way, just as those abortionists feared being made targets when their personal, not to mention highly public, names and addresses were posted on the internet. She recklessly endangered these law abiding individuals and should suffer the consequences of her actions.

Immie

We've just gone in a complete circle.

"Protected" from whom, if they're already the ones with the guns...
Speculation on what might happen is just that; no history....
"Harm's way" in what way, "Endangered" how, etc etc...
"consequences" of already public information...?

We did this already, and I asked the same questions. What's the point asking them all over again?

Once again, maybe this really is unanswerable --- when you 'retaliate' against something publicly revealed, you must have had some reason you wanted that kept hidden. Even though it's already public.

And you continue to reject the answers.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Apparently one round of controversy wasn't good enough for this newspaper because they are going for Round Two:

(Reuters) - A suburban New York newspaper that sparked an uproar among gun enthusiasts by publishing names and addresses of residents holding pistol permits is now planning to publish even more identities of permit-toting locals.

-SNIP-

The next batch of names will be permit holders in suburban Putnam County, New York, where the county clerk told the newspaper it is still compiling information.

-SNIP-

Republican state Senator Greg Ball of Patterson, New York, said he planned to introduce legislation to keep permit information private except to prosecutors and police.

New York newspaper to list more gun permit holders after uproar | Reuters

I'm all for Freedom of the Press and such, but this is off-the-wall hack journalism and the newspaper should have it's license or whatever pulled.

Whether you agree that gun-owners, or non-owners are placed in harm's way, the fact remains, publishing this information places citizens in harm's way.

 

[koshergrl]

Did you ever think theyre not ashamed but that enjoy some modicum of privacy which was lost when their addresses were posted for all to know without going through the effort themselves.

Either way, I'm sure it's not big of a deal. I'm not sure the author will be nominated for any Nobel or Pulitzer prizes any time soon but I could be wrong.

Assuming youre antigun the real question is why you feel the need to conscript the nation to your personal proclivities ?

Hey, I'm just observing. The list the paper published is already public info, so I don't see a privacy issue, but what I'm observing is the revenge reaction when somebody else published the personal info of the paper's personnel. They all acted like the original posting of gun permits was letting out some kind of shameful secret, like it was a video of them skulking into a porn shop. So I'm asking where that sense of shame comes from. Because if you really were proud of it there would be no "retaliation".

It's a question of human psychology and whether people really say what they mean, and if not, what they do mean.

I think you're the first to actually address the question on its own merits. I think I brought it up at least three days ago. That time lapse tells me something too.

Why should that bother you any more than any other publically available information? Motive should be irrelevant. It is public info.

Motive is relevant, you puke. When you publish information specifically to cause harm, that is illegal.

The paper published the names of gun owners to cause them harm.

 

[Pogo]

Brilliant. Both of you just contradicted yourselves.

One right in the same post:

And it's perfectly obvious that you are 100 percent fine with intimidation tactics.
Which is why we won't be giving up our weapons.

(you do realize you just took two different positions in two consecutive sentences, right? Wanna pick one? Because you can't have it both ways)

-- and in separate posts:
"Motive should be irrelevant. It is public info." (yes, exactly) and:
"publishing this information places citizens in harm's way."

Once again -- is it or is it not public information? If such info puts its subjects "in harms way", then they were in harm's way when the info became public. Not when that info was listed in some particular edition of the paper. GW, I can't even tell what your position is; one post refutes the next.

So I'm not "rejecting answers"; I'm getting circular reasoning that sets the question back up.

You two are basically admitting you have no basis, since you cannot articulate it. And that's OK... when you're feeding a fallacy, there is no basis. "Nothing" is the right answer.

Here's another one:
The ideology is that the practice o walking around packing protects you (and others) from the baddies. One thread up right now posits "who would you want to be behind in a shootout - a gun toter or a non-gunner". That being the case, since you guys are Mighty Mouse here to save the day, what the hell is the shame in being that? Why would you want to hide it?

Unless that really isn't the case, eh?

Get it yet?

So go ahead -- tell me all about how publishing public info "causes harm". I believe the obituaries and legal notices are public info too; what kind of "harm" do they cause?

 

[koshergrl]

Well that is too stupid to respond to. So I won't.

Except to reiterate...it is illegal to broadcast information, regardless of whether or not that information is publicly available, with the express purpose of causing harm.

Obviously, you have difficulty tracking. Which is to be expected from mob scum whose primary objective is to kill those they cannot control.

 

[daveman]

Did you ever think theyre not ashamed but that enjoy some modicum of privacy which was lost when their addresses were posted for all to know without going through the effort themselves.

Either way, I'm sure it's not big of a deal. I'm not sure the author will be nominated for any Nobel or Pulitzer prizes any time soon but I could be wrong.

Assuming youre antigun the real question is why you feel the need to conscript the nation to your personal proclivities ?

Liberalism: Ideas so good they have to be mandated by threat of government force!

 

[daveman]

Well that is too stupid to respond to. So I won't.

Except to reiterate...it is illegal to broadcast information, regardless of whether or not that information is publicly available, with the express purpose of causing harm.

Obviously, you have difficulty tracking. Which is to be expected from mob scum whose primary objective is to kill those they cannot control.

Pogo would be leading the candlelight vigil for a burglar shot while robbing one of those houses listed, weeping hysterically.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Hey, I'm just observing. The list the paper published is already public info, so I don't see a privacy issue, but what I'm observing is the revenge reaction when somebody else published the personal info of the paper's personnel. They all acted like the original posting of gun permits was letting out some kind of shameful secret, like it was a video of them skulking into a porn shop. So I'm asking where that sense of shame comes from. Because if you really were proud of it there would be no "retaliation".

It's a question of human psychology and whether people really say what they mean, and if not, what they do mean.

I think you're the first to actually address the question on its own merits. I think I brought it up at least three days ago. That time lapse tells me something too.

Why should that bother you any more than any other publically available information? Motive should be irrelevant. It is public info.

Motive is relevant, you puke. When you publish information specifically to cause harm, that is illegal.

The paper published the names of gun owners to cause them harm.

Thank you for the label. If you had paid even one iota of attention, you might have noticed that I am on the same side as you are. Maybe if you went back to the OP and read from the beginning?

 

[koshergrl]

Meh, I'm not motivated to carefully peruse.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Brilliant. Both of you just contradicted yourselves.

One right in the same post:

And it's perfectly obvious that you are 100 percent fine with intimidation tactics.
Which is why we won't be giving up our weapons.

(you do realize you just took two different positions in two consecutive sentences, right? Wanna pick one? Because you can't have it both ways)

-- and in separate posts:
"Motive should be irrelevant. It is public info." (yes, exactly) and:
"publishing this information places citizens in harm's way."

Once again -- is it or is it not public information? If such info puts its subjects "in harms way", then they were in harm's way when the info became public. Not when that info was listed in some particular edition of the paper. GW, I can't even tell what your position is; one post refutes the next.

So I'm not "rejecting answers"; I'm getting circular reasoning that sets the question back up.

You two are basically admitting you have no basis, since you cannot articulate it. And that's OK... when you're feeding a fallacy, there is no basis. "Nothing" is the right answer.

Here's another one:
The ideology is that the practice o walking around packing protects you (and others) from the baddies. One thread up right now posits "who would you want to be behind in a shootout - a gun toter or a non-gunner". That being the case, since you guys are Mighty Mouse here to save the day, what the hell is the shame in being that? Why would you want to hide it?

Unless that really isn't the case, eh?

Get it yet?

So go ahead -- tell me all about how publishing public info "causes harm". I believe the obituaries and legal notices are public info too; what kind of "harm" do they cause?

Pay attention. I find that the newspaper posting the information about gun owners reprehensible. It does place people in harms way, whether you agree those harmed are the gun owners or those who do not own guns is a point of discussion. While considered "public information", it is not usually the effort put forth by common criminals and the newspaper compiling that information, a providing an interactive map, was a bullshit move.
But now the rub, while the libtards are all for defending the publication of "public information" when it applies to "evil" gun owners, they get their panties in a bunch when someone publishes "public information" that reveals the names and addresses of the newspaper's employees. Tit for tat. The biggest difference between the two lists is: the newspaper employees are far less likely to be targeted by criminals than either gun owners, or the non gun owners.
Now, if you cannot see why publication of such a list has a potential to cause harm, then maybe you are just too lacking in intelligence to understand the motivation behind a liberal rag putting any sector of the populace in harms way by placing information in the hands of criminals.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Meh, I'm not motivated to carefully peruse.

Then I'd recommend you at least refrain from name-calling.

 

[koshergrl]

Nah, I'm fine with it based on what I do read.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Newspaper That Printed Gun Owner Names Hires Armed Guards

The company’s “employees are armed and will be on site during business hours through at least January 2, 2013,” the report said.

No security problems have been reported at the newspaper’s offices.

The Journal News did not return messages seeking comment. They previously released a statement to ABC News defending their decision to publish the map.

Newspaper That Printed Gun Owner Names Hires Armed Guards - ABC News


Irony.

 

[Pogo]

Well that is too stupid to respond to. So I won't.

Except to reiterate...it is illegal to broadcast information, regardless of whether or not that information is publicly available, with the express purpose of causing harm.

Obviously, you have difficulty tracking. Which is to be expected from mob scum whose primary objective is to kill those they cannot control.

That's a complete crock of iron-clad 100% USDA steaming bullshit.

I worked in broadcasting for 28 years and I had to oversee people to follow the rules to protect station licenses; I absolutely positively guarantee you there is no such law, period. Nor could there be; how would you propose to crawl inside someone's head to declare what their motives were?

But go ahead .....link it
This is why there should be a "think" button before "submit message".

Your "intended to cause harm" canard ain't flying. Admit it; you're making shit up out of desperation because your point has no legs. Sorry about the mixed metaphor but this dog don't hunt.