Right to privacy must be upheld for legal gun owners

[Si modo]

A quick story - I own gun's of course, and I have had them for years and years, and when a young man began coming around who had a shady past, and a gang exposed upbringing, I had to become as cautious and as responsible as I could be. I had to use good ole common sense while dealing with him. He needed help and guidance, and I tried to give him some, but his upbringing was engrained within him, and it came out in many ways that made me correct him many times.

I never allowed him into my home, because he asked way to many questions that were uncomfortable to me, so I just allowed him only into the yard and garden when he wanted to help me. His brother was a real bad thug and criminal, and he was torn between being like his brother or being like a normal kid. He asked me one time did I have any guns that I owned, in which I said to him immediately "Nope". He then said well how do you protect yourself (?) and I said well I just take a butcher knife and cut peoples heads off if need be.

I always keep my guns locked up, hidden and secret, and he never knew that I owned any at all.

This is why I thought "wow" when I heard about the idea in which some idiot had upon listing the names and addresses of gun owners somewhere in which this incident happened, and it made me see this immediately as an atrocity that should be met with criminal punishment for violating the right to citizens privacy, and violating the safety of the public at large for such an idiotic dangerous act.

The only "privacy" "right" I am aware of is the Privacy Act of 1974, which restricts the government's release of certain PI information in their databases.

Otherwise, we really have no right to privacy and the legislation on privacy only limits what government can do with personally identifiable information.

That being said, this was an excellent example of irresponsible journalism.

 

[chikenwing]

A quick story - I own gun's of course, and I have had them for years and years, and when a young man began coming around who had a shady past, and a gang exposed upbringing, I had to become as cautious and as responsible as I could be. I had to use good ole common sense while dealing with him. He needed help and guidance, and I tried to give him some, but his upbringing was engrained within him, and it came out in many ways that made me correct him many times.

I never allowed him into my home, because he asked way to many questions that were uncomfortable to me, so I just allowed him only into the yard and garden when he wanted to help me. His brother was a real bad thug and criminal, and he was torn between being like his brother or being like a normal kid. He asked me one time did I have any guns that I owned, in which I said to him immediately "Nope". He then said well how do you protect yourself (?) and I said well I just take a butcher knife and cut peoples heads off if need be.

I always keep my guns locked up, hidden and secret, and he never knew that I owned any at all.

This is why I thought "wow" when I heard about the idea in which some idiot had upon listing the names and addresses of gun owners somewhere in which this incident happened, and it made me see this immediately as an atrocity that should be met with criminal punishment for violating the right to citizens privacy, and violating the safety of the public at large for such an idiotic dangerous act.

The only "privacy" "right" I am aware of is the Privacy Act of 1974, which restricts the government's release of certain PI information in their databases.

Otherwise, we really have no right to privacy and the legislation on privacy only limits what government can do with personally identifiable information.

That being said, this was an excellent example of irresponsible journalism.

Its all about intent,that paper intended on doing what ever harm would come from their publishing those names,despicable!! karma can be a bitch.

 

[Si modo]

A quick story - I own gun's of course, and I have had them for years and years, and when a young man began coming around who had a shady past, and a gang exposed upbringing, I had to become as cautious and as responsible as I could be. I had to use good ole common sense while dealing with him. He needed help and guidance, and I tried to give him some, but his upbringing was engrained within him, and it came out in many ways that made me correct him many times.

I never allowed him into my home, because he asked way to many questions that were uncomfortable to me, so I just allowed him only into the yard and garden when he wanted to help me. His brother was a real bad thug and criminal, and he was torn between being like his brother or being like a normal kid. He asked me one time did I have any guns that I owned, in which I said to him immediately "Nope". He then said well how do you protect yourself (?) and I said well I just take a butcher knife and cut peoples heads off if need be.

I always keep my guns locked up, hidden and secret, and he never knew that I owned any at all.

This is why I thought "wow" when I heard about the idea in which some idiot had upon listing the names and addresses of gun owners somewhere in which this incident happened, and it made me see this immediately as an atrocity that should be met with criminal punishment for violating the right to citizens privacy, and violating the safety of the public at large for such an idiotic dangerous act.

The only "privacy" "right" I am aware of is the Privacy Act of 1974, which restricts the government's release of certain PI information in their databases.

Otherwise, we really have no right to privacy and the legislation on privacy only limits what government can do with personally identifiable information.

That being said, this was an excellent example of irresponsible journalism.

Its all about intent,that paper intended on doing what ever harm would come from their publishing those names,despicable!! karma can be a bitch.

With respect to intent, I really have no idea what the hell their intent was. What they did was reckless, and whoever OKed publishing that has brain damage.

 

[beagle9]

Anyone who has applied for a protective order should absolutely not have their private information published, even if holding a weapons permit is public record. Gun owners might not mind having their names or addresses published because many of them advertise it themselves. Anyone who has a window sticker saying,

"Property protected by Smith and Wesson" doesn't mind having this information published.

The key word here is themselves, otherwise they chose to advertise it, and for what reason they advertised it for (might be elderly and retired living there in their home, and the neighborhood has since turned dangerous), but it shouldn't be that others should take the liberty to put the advertisement or information out there for all to see, and especially if they didn't call for it.

If I had a sign in my yard, it would be only for my immediate surroundings to then hopefully adhere to, but it would not be posted for someone who is living on the other side of town to know about or for someone in another state to know about either.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If it's public it's out there sorry.

Absolutely agree, but the actions by that newspaper in New York was clearly for intimidation purposes. I think we all know that.

What I don't they thought about, however, is now that every criminal knows who has a gun in the area they know which houses to avoid, which could actually make non gun owners a bigger target.

 

[chikenwing]

The only "privacy" "right" I am aware of is the Privacy Act of 1974, which restricts the government's release of certain PI information in their databases.

Otherwise, we really have no right to privacy and the legislation on privacy only limits what government can do with personally identifiable information.

That being said, this was an excellent example of irresponsible journalism.

Its all about intent,that paper intended on doing what ever harm would come from their publishing those names,despicable!! karma can be a bitch.

With respect to intent, I really have no idea what the hell their intent was. What they did was reckless, and whoever OKed publishing that has brain damage.

Well look at it this way,you think they were trying to help?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

School me here a bit then, how is it that private gun owners and their ownership is somehow public information ? I didn't know this, but do tell please...

It depends on where you live. Here in South Carolina everyone with a conceal carry permit is public record, but not gun ownership itself as the state does not require gun owners to register their weapon, so you don't know who owns one and who doesn't.

Has this nation absolutely no common sense anymore what so ever ?

It's becoming far and few between.

 

[beagle9]

A quick story - I own gun's of course, and I have had them for years and years, and when a young man began coming around who had a shady past, and a gang exposed upbringing, I had to become as cautious and as responsible as I could be. I had to use good ole common sense while dealing with him. He needed help and guidance, and I tried to give him some, but his upbringing was engrained within him, and it came out in many ways that made me correct him many times.

I never allowed him into my home, because he asked way to many questions that were uncomfortable to me, so I just allowed him only into the yard and garden when he wanted to help me. His brother was a real bad thug and criminal, and he was torn between being like his brother or being like a normal kid. He asked me one time did I have any guns that I owned, in which I said to him immediately "Nope". He then said well how do you protect yourself (?) and I said well I just take a butcher knife and cut peoples heads off if need be.

I always keep my guns locked up, hidden and secret, and he never knew that I owned any at all.

This is why I thought "wow" when I heard about the idea in which some idiot had upon listing the names and addresses of gun owners somewhere in which this incident happened, and it made me see this immediately as an atrocity that should be met with criminal punishment for violating the right to citizens privacy, and violating the safety of the public at large for such an idiotic dangerous act.

The only "privacy" "right" I am aware of is the Privacy Act of 1974, which restricts the government's release of certain PI information in their databases.

Otherwise, we really have no right to privacy and the legislation on privacy only limits what government can do with personally identifiable information.

That being said, this was an excellent example of irresponsible journalism.

And it should be an example of how we should visit the topic on privacy now in America, and how this nation is being exposed to all sorts of evil due to the wild and crazy interpretation of what privacy should be and shouldn't be any longer in America..

 

[beagle9]

If it's public it's out there sorry.

Absolutely agree, but the actions by that newspaper in New York was clearly for intimidation purposes. I think we all know that.

What I don't they thought about, however, is now that every criminal knows who has a gun in the area they know which houses to avoid, which could actually make non gun owners a bigger target.

Exactly...

 

[Si modo]

Its all about intent,that paper intended on doing what ever harm would come from their publishing those names,despicable!! karma can be a bitch.

With respect to intent, I really have no idea what the hell their intent was. What they did was reckless, and whoever OKed publishing that has brain damage.

Well look at it this way,you think they were trying to help?

When I see something absolutely moronic and/or insane, I tell myself if knowing what was going through their minds at the time would change the act from being moronic and/or insane. Also, I know I don't really want to know how to think like a moron and/or a whackadoodle.

This is just so crazy, that I really cannot figure out what their intent was.

That's all I'm saying...

 

[Zander]

Good idea. Let's release the names and addresses of all gun owners along with maps to their houses.

Of course the result will be the exact opposite of what the leftwingnuts want....A huge increase in gun ownership.

 

[Pogo]

Jillian raises a good point. What's the difference between a public notice of where firearms are and a public notice of where sex offenders are? Either one can cause harm. And one of them can do it without even being seen.

Katz makes a good point too -- if public knowledge of your guns is something to keep hidden, then why do so many of the same owners hang a sign saying "This property protected by Smith & Wesson"? If they do so because such warning makes that house more secure, then by definition the newspaper just made all the gun owners in its readership area more secure, and saved them the expense of a sign too. If such info makes that house less secure, then why are gun owners hanging these signs voluntarily with the obvious intent of being seen? You can't have it both ways -- pick a gripe.

And we still have yet to hear articulated exactly how the publication actually harms anybody. Vague theories of "what the paper intended" are worthless... unless you want to revisit the motive of shame. And if that is the harm inflicted, then the original question stands: why, if guns are the godsend panacea the Gnuts say they are, are they ashamed of it?

Discuss.

 

[beagle9]

With respect to intent, I really have no idea what the hell their intent was. What they did was reckless, and whoever OKed publishing that has brain damage.

Well look at it this way,you think they were trying to help?

When I see something absolutely moronic and/or insane, I tell myself if knowing what was going through their minds at the time would change the act from being moronic and/or insane. Also, I know I don't really want to know how to think like a moron and/or a whackadoodle.

This is just so crazy, that I really cannot figure out what their intent was.

That's all I'm saying...

The intent was a foolish one, and this no matter how we are to look at it...

 

[chikenwing]

With respect to intent, I really have no idea what the hell their intent was. What they did was reckless, and whoever OKed publishing that has brain damage.

Well look at it this way,you think they were trying to help?

When I see something absolutely moronic and/or insane, I tell myself if knowing what was going through their minds at the time would change the act from being moronic and/or insane. Also, I know I don't really want to know how to think like a moron and/or a whackadoodle.

This is just so crazy, that I really cannot figure out what their intent was.

That's all I'm saying...

True enough,I am going with they intended harm in what ever way it came.

I don't think they were intending on helping the people who's names and locations were published in a list in a paper with a large circulation do you?

 

[jillian]

Jillian raises a good point. What's the difference between a public notice of where firearms are and a public notice of where sex offenders are? Either one can cause harm. And one of them can do it without even being seen.

Katz makes a good point too -- if public knowledge of your guns is something to keep hidden, then why do so many of the same owners hang a sign saying "This property protected by Smith & Wesson"? If they do so because such warning makes that house more secure, then by definition the newspaper just made all the gun owners in its readership area more secure, and saved them the expense of a sign too. If such info makes that house less secure, then why are gun owners hanging these signs voluntarily with the obvious intent of being seen? You can't have it both ways -- pick a gripe.

And we still have yet to hear articulated exactly how the publication actually harms anybody. Vague theories of "what the paper intended" are worthless... unless you want to revisit the motive of shame. And if that is the harm inflicted, then the original question stands: why, if guns are the godsend panacea the Gnuts say they are, are they ashamed of it?

Discuss.

the difference is there is no legal right to be a pedophile.

there is a legal right to obtain/perform abortions

if someone is properly licensed, they have a legal right to have a gun.

 

[jillian]

Good idea. Let's release the names and addresses of all gun owners along with maps to their houses.

Of course the result will be the exact opposite of what the leftwingnuts want....A huge increase in gun ownership.

i don't agree, Z. i think it makes those homes targets for robbery.

 

[beagle9]

I don't know why we have a hiring problem in this nation, especially with all the idiots out there making paychecks doing job's in these ways....Scratching my head in confusion big time..

 

[Si modo]

Good idea. Let's release the names and addresses of all gun owners along with maps to their houses.

Of course the result will be the exact opposite of what the leftwingnuts want....A huge increase in gun ownership.

Word is, one cannot buy an AR-15 within a 300 mile radius around these parts...sold out.

 

[Si modo]

Good idea. Let's release the names and addresses of all gun owners along with maps to their houses.

Of course the result will be the exact opposite of what the leftwingnuts want....A huge increase in gun ownership.

i don't agree, Z. i think it makes those homes targets for robbery.

Or, the other homes not listed great targets, too.

 

[Zander]

Good idea. Let's release the names and addresses of all gun owners along with maps to their houses.

Of course the result will be the exact opposite of what the leftwingnuts want....A huge increase in gun ownership.

i don't agree, Z. i think it makes those homes targets for robbery.

Why would a burglar want to rob a home where he knows the occupants have guns when he can go right next door and rob the unarmed home? Criminals aren't that stupid....