Right to privacy must be upheld for legal gun owners

[Pogo]

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.

There's another thought point: how do you "intimidate" people who by definition have more firepower than humans do? And this is exactly why I keep asking about "shame".

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.

That's one theory that's been put forth on this forum; the other is that since guns are a valuable theftable item that can be quickly turned over on the street, it should draw the burglar toward, not away from, the armed house. But these theories stand in direct opposition. Again, theorists have to pick a side here; can't have it both ways. To just throw everything at the wall in hope something sticks isn't having a position at all.

And again, we have no evidence that either one has actually happened as a result of the publication so this is all armchair speculation. But there's no reason such speculation doesn't still require a logical basis.

 

[beagle9]

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.

Ashamed ????? Are you insane maybe ? I am a proud gun owner, and the actions of an idiot who should have been committed doesn't make me ashamed of being a gun owner at all. I mean not unless the gun itself has some kind of power over me, that would make me begin to become possessed by the evil spirit that dwell's within my guns. Is that what the left is scared of maybe, that the guns are evil and therefore will make anyone in possession of them evil as well ?

Discuss

 

[beagle9]

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....

Unless they are targeting the guns themselves..

 

[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.

Ashamed ????? Are you insane maybe ? I am a proud gun owner, and the actions of an idiot who should have been committed doesn't make me ashamed of being a gun owner at all. I mean not unless the gun itself has some kind of power over me, that would make me begin to become possessed by the evil spirit that dwell's within my guns. Is that what the left is scared of maybe, that the guns are evil and therefore will make anyone in possession of them evil as well ?

OK fine, I'm just groping for answers-- then eliminate "shame" as a motive for the newspaper -- what's left? If this vague never-defined "harm" of "whatever the newspaper intended" is not shame, and if "intimidation" of people who are by definition armed and less intimidated, then what's left for this "harmful" motive?

I'm not even taking a side here; I'm just looking for some logic in arriving at whatever point is arrived at. "Whatever the paper intended" is just not good enough. Either there's a logical complaint, or there isn't.

 

[Katzndogz]

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 people who are griping are entitled to gripe. A woman who is in hiding from an abuser has a gun, but the abuser doesn't know where she is. If he knew where she was, he'd have been on her doorstep. Now he knows. Active and retired police officers have guns and a whole lot of people who don't like them. Putting their information in the newspaper puts them at risk, their families at risk AND the revenge seeking criminals at risk. Witnesses against criminals have guns and are in hiding from the associates of people they put away. Entertainers have guns and most people don't know where they live. Now they do.

All of the information on who has a gun permit is public record. However, no one can just go down to the records office and rifle through the files. You have to sign for that information and provide your own name and address to get it. Who is asking for that information is as public as the information itself. Put it in the newspaper and it of course become obtained anonymously.

The result the newspaper wants is, of course, a VERY high body count that they can use to demand gun confiscation from everyone. The ends justify the means and if it takes the deaths of hundreds of people to get guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, it's worth it.

 

[Pogo]

The result the newspaper wants is, of course, a VERY high body count that they can use to demand gun confiscation from everyone. The ends justify the means and if it takes the deaths of hundreds of people to get guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, it's worth it.

That's the first time I've heard that theory. Anyone agree?

 

[Si modo]

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.

Ashamed ????? Are you insane maybe ? I am a proud gun owner, and the actions of an idiot who should have been committed doesn't make me ashamed of being a gun owner at all. I mean not unless the gun itself has some kind of power over me, that would make me begin to become possessed by the evil spirit that dwell's within my guns. Is that what the left is scared of maybe, that the guns are evil and therefore will make anyone in possession of them evil as well ?

OK fine, I'm just groping for answers-- then eliminate "shame" as a motive for the newspaper -- what's left? If this vague never-defined "harm" of "whatever the newspaper intended" is not shame, and if "intimidation" of people who are by definition armed and less intimidated, then what's left for this "harmful" motive?

I'm not even taking a side here; I'm just looking for some logic in arriving at whatever point is arrived at. "Whatever the paper intended" is just not good enough. Either there's a logical complaint, or there isn't.

What a fucking moron you are.

Some folks actually do have court orders in place to protect themselves from stalkers or freaky exes...some even have court orders in place not to disclose their address to their ex because the ex is a freak.

And, some of those folks actually get weapons just in case...

And, some cops actually have weapons in their names and some of those cops have actually made enemies with some pretty bad folks, thus why they don't advertise their addresses too much.

And, some folks want folks to believe that they ARE armed, even if they aren't.

The list goes on....

 

[beagle9]

When extreme change in America is to be looked for, it seems that some people will go to extreme measures to get that change, and this of course may be a look see into that motivated mindset in that respect, where as the ends justifies the means as you say..

 

[beagle9]

The result the newspaper wants is, of course, a VERY high body count that they can use to demand gun confiscation from everyone. The ends justify the means and if it takes the deaths of hundreds of people to get guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, it's worth it.

That's the first time I've heard that theory. Anyone agree?

Could be one correct theory of course, but no one would know unless they can get into the minds of the perps. and it is then known for sure, so breaking down the numbers usually leads to a good conclusion most times, and that is all anyone can do here..

 

[Si modo]

Gannett Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Owner of Journal News, in case anyone would like to know what other entities this publisher owns/runs.

 

[Pogo]

The result the newspaper wants is, of course, a VERY high body count that they can use to demand gun confiscation from everyone. The ends justify the means and if it takes the deaths of hundreds of people to get guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, it's worth it.

That's the first time I've heard that theory. Anyone agree?

Could be one correct theory of course, but no one would know unless they can get into the minds of the perps. and it is then known for sure, so breaking down the numbers usually leads to a good conclusion most times, and that is all anyone can do here..

By "perps" I take it you mean the newspaper, although that's loaded since it hasn't been demonstrated they did anything wrong.

This theory is pretty out there, but just to entertain it, somebody connect the dots between publishing a map of gun owners and a "high body count". How would that come about? The area gun owners see themselves in the paper and immediately wig out on random rampages?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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..

That sounds good but the problem is, of course, the issue has become political. Consequently, concerns dealing with privacy rights are addressed in an inconsistent manner, where the perceived right to privacy concerning gun ownership is not extended to the actual right to privacy with regard to abortion, predicated solely on a subjective political agenda.

This also goes to the debate as to the role privacy plays with regard to our 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures of our persons, houses, papers, and effects as the state attempts to ‘fight crime’ and ‘terrorism.’

It goes to our online privacy with regard to restrictions against the state, invasion of privacy by private entities not subject to 4th and 5th Amendment jurisprudence, and the responsibility of private entities who possess private information, particularly how private information entities are to interact with the state in the context of law enforcement.

What then would be the remedy for gun permit holders concerned about having their private information made public? In my state, for example, there are no gun permits, licenses, or registration requirements; the authorities have no idea as to what guns I own, how many I might own, or even if I own any at all. Would the remedy be through the legislative process, where the people of a given state that requires gun permits compel their lawmakers to repeal such laws? And since the law indeed authorizes permits, can it not be said permits exist per the will of a majority of the people?

Or have the people crossed the Constitutional line?

Would the remedy be in the courts, where it could be argued that requiring permits is un-Constitutionally burdensome, particularly if the permit holder knows that his information could be made public? Women are not required to obtain an license to have an abortion, for example, nor have that information potentially made public, regardless of what Ann Coulter might think. Such a requirement for women would clearly manifest an undue burden, and be struck down accordingly. Thus far, as we know, permit requirements have passed Constitutional muster when reviewed by the courts.

That the publishing of gun permit information by a local newspaper was poor and irresponsible journalism is beyond debate; one hopes, however, that the issue might foster more productive and vital debate concerning privacy issues.

 

[Katzndogz]

Memphis Tennessee published the name and zip codes of gun owners. The result was predictable.

n 2008, the Commercial Appeal in Memphis published a searchable database of concealed-carry handgun permit owners in Tennessee that included names and ZIP codes of gun owners (but not addresses). A similar furor followed. "What they've done is give criminals a lighted pathway to [burglarize] the homes of gun owners," Chris Cox, now the top lobbyist for the National Rifle Assn., told the paper at the time.

But that concern turned out to be wrong, according to the 2010 study by Alessandro Acquisti, an associate professor at Carnegie Mellon, and Catherine Tucker, a professor at MIT, titled "Guns, Privacy and Crime."

Using the information published by the Commercial Appeal, they found burglaries in 2009 declined 18% in the city's ZIP codes with the most concealed-carry permits and generally increased in ZIP codes with the fewest.

The study also suggested that, following publication of the Memphis database, burglary risk instead shifted to areas with fewer gun registrations. In fact, the study noted that the "results suggest that, despite activism on the part of gun owners against the publication of such databases, it may actually be gun permit holders who benefited" from publication.

N.Y. news site stirs outrage after publishing gun owners' names - latimes.com

What the New York paper hopes for is that more people will use their guns defensively, the thefts into gun owning homes will be more violent and attacks on those holding gun permits will be more numerous. It's pretty transparent, really.

 

[beagle9]

That's the first time I've heard that theory. Anyone agree?

Could be one correct theory of course, but no one would know unless they can get into the minds of the perps. and it is then known for sure, so breaking down the numbers usually leads to a good conclusion most times, and that is all anyone can do here..

By "perps" I take it you mean the newspaper, although that's loaded since it hasn't been demonstrated they did anything wrong.

This theory is pretty out there, but just to entertain it, somebody connect the dots between publishing a map of gun owners and a "high body count". How would that come about? The area gun owners see themselves in the paper and immediately wig out on random rampages?

No not in the way that you present it, but it could be that a person or persons may have figured that an indirect act to come as a result of, and of course it not being linked back to them in which could occur, would then somehow strengthen their position against vast gun ownership in America even farther, and this as found in their evil minds if were the case. I think intimidation is the proper word looked for in the entire situation, and that was probably the intent of the journalist in the case when they did this..

 

[Pogo]

Memphis Tennessee published the name and zip codes of gun owners. The result was predictable.

n 2008, the Commercial Appeal in Memphis published a searchable database of concealed-carry handgun permit owners in Tennessee that included names and ZIP codes of gun owners (but not addresses). A similar furor followed. "What they've done is give criminals a lighted pathway to [burglarize] the homes of gun owners," Chris Cox, now the top lobbyist for the National Rifle Assn., told the paper at the time.

But that concern turned out to be wrong, according to the 2010 study by Alessandro Acquisti, an associate professor at Carnegie Mellon, and Catherine Tucker, a professor at MIT, titled "Guns, Privacy and Crime."

Using the information published by the Commercial Appeal, they found burglaries in 2009 declined 18% in the city's ZIP codes with the most concealed-carry permits and generally increased in ZIP codes with the fewest.

The study also suggested that, following publication of the Memphis database, burglary risk instead shifted to areas with fewer gun registrations. In fact, the study noted that the "results suggest that, despite activism on the part of gun owners against the publication of such databases, it may actually be gun permit holders who benefited" from publication.

N.Y. news site stirs outrage after publishing gun owners' names - latimes.com

What the New York paper hopes for is that more people will use their guns defensively, the thefts into gun owning homes will be more violent and attacks on those holding gun permits will be more numerous. It's pretty transparent, really.

That to me looks like good solid logic ---- up to the words "what the New York paper hopes for". At that point it seems to disintegrate. It directly contradicts the Memphis example and presents no basis for itself, or for that contradiction.

 

[Pogo]

Could be one correct theory of course, but no one would know unless they can get into the minds of the perps. and it is then known for sure, so breaking down the numbers usually leads to a good conclusion most times, and that is all anyone can do here..

By "perps" I take it you mean the newspaper, although that's loaded since it hasn't been demonstrated they did anything wrong.

This theory is pretty out there, but just to entertain it, somebody connect the dots between publishing a map of gun owners and a "high body count". How would that come about? The area gun owners see themselves in the paper and immediately wig out on random rampages?

No not in the way that you present it, but it could be that a person or persons may have figured that an indirect act to come as a result of, and of course it not being linked back to them in which could occur, would then somehow strengthen their position against vast gun ownership in America even farther, and this as found in their evil minds if were the case. I think intimidation is the proper word looked for in the entire situation, and that was probably the intent of the journalist in the case when they did this..

Now you can see why I posed the question -- the stretch lengths that are necessary to feed the theory. This is how silly theories get exposed as such.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Those names were already public information, so there's no privacy to violate. And how does this publishing of public info "violate the safety of the public"? Please explain.

It's not about privacy it's about the potential harm and risk factor to others that should be addressed It's like liberals love to claim you can't yell fire in a theater. You can't allow thugs to know who does and does not have firearms. You're not only placing the unarmed people in danger your also allowing the death of a thug if he mistakenly breaks into a home that has a firearm owner living in it and he just might be home.

 

[beagle9]

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..

That sounds good but the problem is, of course, the issue has become political. Consequently, concerns dealing with privacy rights are addressed in an inconsistent manner, where the perceived right to privacy concerning gun ownership is not extended to the actual right to privacy with regard to abortion, predicated solely on a subjective political agenda.

This also goes to the debate as to the role privacy plays with regard to our 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures of our persons, houses, papers, and effects as the state attempts to ‘fight crime’ and ‘terrorism.’

It goes to our online privacy with regard to restrictions against the state, invasion of privacy by private entities not subject to 4th and 5th Amendment jurisprudence, and the responsibility of private entities who possess private information, particularly how private information entities are to interact with the state in the context of law enforcement.

What then would be the remedy for gun permit holders concerned about having their private information made public? In my state, for example, there are no gun permits, licenses, or registration requirements; the authorities have no idea as to what guns I own, how many I might own, or even if I own any at all. Would the remedy be through the legislative process, where the people of a given state that requires gun permits compel their lawmakers to repeal such laws? And since the law indeed authorizes permits, can it not be said permits exist per the will of a majority of the people?

Or have the people crossed the Constitutional line?

Would the remedy be in the courts, where it could be argued that requiring permits is un-Constitutionally burdensome, particularly if the permit holder knows that his information could be made public? Women are not required to obtain an license to have an abortion, for example, nor have that information potentially made public, regardless of what Ann Coulter might think. Such a requirement for women would clearly manifest an undue burden, and be struck down accordingly. Thus far, as we know, permit requirements have passed Constitutional muster when reviewed by the courts.

That the publishing of gun permit information by a local newspaper was poor and irresponsible journalism is beyond debate; one hopes, however, that the issue might foster more productive and vital debate concerning privacy issues.

The only ones who need to know about the information upon for whom has gun permits for concealed carry, and for whom has legally owned firearms on their person or in their homes is "law enforcement", and no one else period.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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..

That sounds good but the problem is, of course, the issue has become political. Consequently, concerns dealing with privacy rights are addressed in an inconsistent manner, where the perceived right to privacy concerning gun ownership is not extended to the actual right to privacy with regard to abortion, predicated solely on a subjective political agenda.

This also goes to the debate as to the role privacy plays with regard to our 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures of our persons, houses, papers, and effects as the state attempts to ‘fight crime’ and ‘terrorism.’

It goes to our online privacy with regard to restrictions against the state, invasion of privacy by private entities not subject to 4th and 5th Amendment jurisprudence, and the responsibility of private entities who possess private information, particularly how private information entities are to interact with the state in the context of law enforcement.

What then would be the remedy for gun permit holders concerned about having their private information made public? In my state, for example, there are no gun permits, licenses, or registration requirements; the authorities have no idea as to what guns I own, how many I might own, or even if I own any at all. Would the remedy be through the legislative process, where the people of a given state that requires gun permits compel their lawmakers to repeal such laws? And since the law indeed authorizes permits, can it not be said permits exist per the will of a majority of the people?

Or have the people crossed the Constitutional line?

Would the remedy be in the courts, where it could be argued that requiring permits is un-Constitutionally burdensome, particularly if the permit holder knows that his information could be made public? Women are not required to obtain an license to have an abortion, for example, nor have that information potentially made public, regardless of what Ann Coulter might think. Such a requirement for women would clearly manifest an undue burden, and be struck down accordingly. Thus far, as we know, permit requirements have passed Constitutional muster when reviewed by the courts.

That the publishing of gun permit information by a local newspaper was poor and irresponsible journalism is beyond debate; one hopes, however, that the issue might foster more productive and vital debate concerning privacy issues.

The only ones who need to know about the information upon for whom has gun permits for concealed carry, and for whom has legally owned firearms on their person or in their homes is "law enforcement", and no one else period.

No not even law enforcement has a need to know if you have firearms in your home. The only time they may have a need to know is if you are conceal carrying in public.

 

[beagle9]

This theory is pretty out there, but just to entertain it, somebody connect the dots between publishing a map of gun owners and a "high body count". How would that come about? The area gun owners see themselves in the paper and immediately wig out on random rampages?

Kidding me right, so you put this back upon the good and legal gun owners who had their names published, and not upon the bad guy's (the publishers in this case), and the thugs/theives for whom may take advantage of the publishing of these names or adresses ? WOW!

It's like when Spike Lee went and published the adress of Zimmerman, and then he got the wrong adress where as people were abused in that situation (even having to leave their home I think it was the case), but it couldn't be connected for criminal purposes back to Spike Lee, for whom acording to the left hadn't done anything wrong in their opinion, and so he escaped charges in the case.

Isn't it funny how the left see's nothing wrong in anything they do, but see everything wrong with what their made up enemies do now in America ? I tell you they (the left) are on a mission, and if no one can see this, then they are just totally whacked is what they are (imho).