Should The Media Expose Legal Gun Owners' Names And Addresses?

[Wicked Jester]

I have no problem with publishing the names of gun owners.

And you would feel the same if you were some woman who may have a restraining/protection order against some whackjob who is intent on doing her harm, and requires that gun for added protection?......Or, how about a cop or retired cop who may have criminal scum with axes to grind, who would love to know where they and their family live?.....How about a witness in a jury trial who testifed against some evil **** who is now seeking revenge?......How about Judges, D.A.'s, Prison Guards, and on, and on, and on?

Think about it hard, before answering.

Fact of the matter is, that newspaper did nothing to ensure that any people in the above situations were not identified......They compiled the list of names, and simply published it to suit their left wing agenda.....It's disgusting, and just one more reason why it should not be a matter of public record, either.

 

[tjvh]

Any of you assholes ever ask yourselves why you are so quick to hand away your freedoms where guns are considered, but some dickhead tells you he is after your stupid ass video games, and you idiots go ape-shit and scream the First Amendment like it's going outta style... You who would rather defend nonsensical video games as opposed to reality are nothing more than dumb ******* people who will never be more than the victims you already are... **** off.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Any of you assholes ever ask yourselves why you are so quick to hand away your freedoms where guns are considered, but some dickhead tells you he is after your stupid ass video games, and you idiots go ape-shit and scream the First Amendment like it's going outta style... You who would rather defend nonsensical video games as opposed to reality are nothing more than dumb ******* people who will never be more than the victims you already are... **** off.

I can name SEVERAL leftists who do nothing but sit online all day long- no job- one is in his twenties and let's the taxpayer support him and his family.. Of course they scream about their video games.. it's a part of their daily routine. They also piss themselves if you mention scaling down Roe.. See, they can strip your rights but if you dare mention something they champion.. KILLING KIDS, they cry like pampered babies.

Leftist logic: Gun grab to protect kids but we demand the right to murder kids before they're even born! What a bunch of insane fruitbars.

 

[Noomi]

Its an invasion of privacy, so of course it shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Any of you assholes ever ask yourselves why you are so quick to hand away your freedoms where guns are considered, but some dickhead tells you he is after your stupid ass video games, and you idiots go ape-shit and scream the First Amendment like it's going outta style... You who would rather defend nonsensical video games as opposed to reality are nothing more than dumb ******* people who will never be more than the victims you already are... **** off.

I can name SEVERAL leftists who do nothing but sit online all day long- no job- one is in his twenties and let's the taxpayer support him and his family.. Of course they scream about their video games.. it's a part of their daily routine. They also piss themselves if you mention scaling down Roe.. See, they can strip your rights but if you dare mention something they champion.. KILLING KIDS, they cry like pampered babies.

Leftist logic: Gun grab to protect kids but we demand the right to murder kids before they're even born! What a bunch of insane fruitbars.

After reading through these threads like the lil' Lactater starts, it's become quite clear that the left just loves when incidents like Sandy Hook happen.

Dead children are a good thing, for it gives them a chance to promote their agenda.

Yeah, they are fruitbars to the core.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I think the people who should be concerned in the two countries are those who don't have guns. The paper just kindly alerted criminals to which homes are safe to enter to rape or rob without fear of meeting deadly resistance. The paper listed legal gun owners names and addresses, which is a violation of their privacy. I like the fact the one woman thought it was a good idea, though wouldn't want names and addresses of welfare recipients listed. Do we all have a right to privacy or not? We all have the same rights- or not. If gun owners don't have a right to privacy, then no one does.

This was a completely shitty thing to do, but typical of brainless idiots who think their opinion trumps everyone elses'.

Should The Media Expose Legal Gun Owners' Names And Addresses?

MRCTV took to the streets to see if we could find anyone who supported the actions taken by the Journal News last week when it printed the names and addresses of 16 thousand legal gun owners in two New York counties.

It is difficult to imagine that any American would be okay with the idea of invading the privacy of law-abiding citizens in this fashion. Particularly, since the exposure of this personal information serves no discernable purpose other than to shame gun owners - and could even be used by criminals researching potential victims.

But, some people did like the concept of publishing the names of legal gun owners.
One lady who signed off on the idea changed her tune when asked if it'd be okay to publish the names of everyone on food stamps or receiving government money.

"Now, I sound hypocritical, because I don't think that's right," she admitted.

Should The Media Expose Legal Gun Owners' Names And Addresses? | CNS News

no they should not and Americans should push for the law to be changed .

Personally I think gun registration should be mandatory and the information on the guns should be readily available if needed but totally inaccessible without a warrant.

In other words every single gun should be in a database , I would prefer kept at each local level, where a serial number and slug sample are available for comparison to any open cases , but to obtain any data on the owner would require a warrant.

For example if John Smith owned a .357 S&W serial number 0101 , he'd be in no danger of anyone knowing, but if a future crime were committed with that weapon the police would have a way of tracking it to its last known owner if they had either the serial number or a slug to match to.

but certainly no one should be able to go down and get a list of everyone who owns a gun.

 

[RoadVirus]

I don't see why the radical right wing trolls are getting so butthurt over this. It's public information that anyone can obtain easily.

These people have done nothing wrong, and yet a media outlet sees it necessary to plaster their names and addresses for all to see, all because they *gasp* own a gun.

What is the point? What business is it of this newspaper and others that these people own a gun? This is nothing but political hackery masquerading as journalism.

 

[RoadVirus]

I don't see why the radical right wing trolls are getting so butthurt over this. It's public information that anyone can obtain easily.

How about you take into account the FACT that there are many retired police out there who may have criminal fuckwits with an axe to grind, who would love to know where they may live......And then there are those women out there carrying for the sole reason that they have restraining/protection orders against some freak who would love to know where they live

And those are just two reasons out of many as to why it's friggin' ridiculous, you far left wing moron.

Again, all that information is easily assessable as it's public records you radical right wing, ass licking *****.

And if something about you was "accessible public record" was revealed in the newspapers, how would you feel?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I think the people who should be concerned in the two countries are those who don't have guns. The paper just kindly alerted criminals to which homes are safe to enter to rape or rob without fear of meeting deadly resistance. The paper listed legal gun owners names and addresses, which is a violation of their privacy. I like the fact the one woman thought it was a good idea, though wouldn't want names and addresses of welfare recipients listed. Do we all have a right to privacy or not? We all have the same rights- or not. If gun owners don't have a right to privacy, then no one does.

This was a completely shitty thing to do, but typical of brainless idiots who think their opinion trumps everyone elses'.

Should The Media Expose Legal Gun Owners' Names And Addresses?

MRCTV took to the streets to see if we could find anyone who supported the actions taken by the Journal News last week when it printed the names and addresses of 16 thousand legal gun owners in two New York counties.

It is difficult to imagine that any American would be okay with the idea of invading the privacy of law-abiding citizens in this fashion. Particularly, since the exposure of this personal information serves no discernable purpose other than to shame gun owners - and could even be used by criminals researching potential victims.

But, some people did like the concept of publishing the names of legal gun owners.
One lady who signed off on the idea changed her tune when asked if it'd be okay to publish the names of everyone on food stamps or receiving government money.

"Now, I sound hypocritical, because I don't think that's right," she admitted.

Should The Media Expose Legal Gun Owners' Names And Addresses? | CNS News

Should the Federal Government censor the private media?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Should the Federal Government censor the private media?

No.

States need to keep such info privileged.

Many do and are.

 

[logical4u]

I think the people who should be concerned in the two countries are those who don't have guns. The paper just kindly alerted criminals to which homes are safe to enter to rape or rob without fear of meeting deadly resistance. The paper listed legal gun owners names and addresses, which is a violation of their privacy. I like the fact the one woman thought it was a good idea, though wouldn't want names and addresses of welfare recipients listed. Do we all have a right to privacy or not? We all have the same rights- or not. If gun owners don't have a right to privacy, then no one does.

This was a completely shitty thing to do, but typical of brainless idiots who think their opinion trumps everyone elses'.

Should The Media Expose Legal Gun Owners' Names And Addresses?

MRCTV took to the streets to see if we could find anyone who supported the actions taken by the Journal News last week when it printed the names and addresses of 16 thousand legal gun owners in two New York counties.

It is difficult to imagine that any American would be okay with the idea of invading the privacy of law-abiding citizens in this fashion. Particularly, since the exposure of this personal information serves no discernable purpose other than to shame gun owners - and could even be used by criminals researching potential victims.

But, some people did like the concept of publishing the names of legal gun owners.
One lady who signed off on the idea changed her tune when asked if it'd be okay to publish the names of everyone on food stamps or receiving government money.

"Now, I sound hypocritical, because I don't think that's right," she admitted.

Should The Media Expose Legal Gun Owners' Names And Addresses? | CNS News

These are the people that use federal lists to hurt people they disagree with on issues.
Do you think health records will be any different?
Publish the list of those that have Hepatitis.
Publish the list of those with herpes.
Publish the list of those with STDs.
Publish the list of those with AIDS.
Publish the list of those that have received treatment for mental health.
Publish the list of those that have been cited for drunk driving.
Publish the list of those that have been cited for speeding.
Publish the list of those that have been cited for traffic violations.
Publish the list of those that own cars that will do over 120 mph.
Publish the list of those that have motorcycles.
Publish the list of those that have four-wheelers.
Publish the list of those that collect aid from the gov't.
Publish the list of islamic religious leaders.
Publish the list of Jewish religious leaders.
Publish the list of Christian religious leaders.

After all, any of these are likely to cause pain or even death of something out there, and if it save just one thing.........

Yes, it is time to acknowledge the public now lives in "fear" of the gov't, and its lapdog media.

 

[logical4u]

Aren't gun owner records in the public domain? NaziCons have no hesitation publishing the names, addresses and pictures of abortion providers.

Funny, the administration is touting that they should confiscate guns because it would save one life, and how many millions of lives have abortions taken, how many millions? Yet you want that "protected" and kept private?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The paper just kindly alerted criminals to which homes are safe to enter to rape or rob without fear of meeting deadly resistance.

Are you seriously this ******* stupid? Its EASY to avoid meeting deadly resistance in robbing a home with guns - you just wait until the occupants aren't in the building. My **** you're a retard. Criminals LIKE guns, if they know you have them in your home you are MORE likely to get robbed because they want to STEAL YOU GUNS AND SELL THEM. Jesus ******* Christ tell me your parents didn't pay any money for your education.

 

[Papawx3]

And people wonder why the majority of gun owners in this country don't and won't bother to register their privately-owned weapons?

 

[BOBO]

...& U won't have to worry about it. The less g'ment knows the more privacy folks have.

 

[Papawx3]

The paper just kindly alerted criminals to which homes are safe to enter to rape or rob without fear of meeting deadly resistance.

Are you seriously this ******* stupid? Its EASY to avoid meeting deadly resistance in robbing a home with guns - you just wait until the occupants aren't in the building. My **** you're a retard. Criminals LIKE guns, if they know you have them in your home you are MORE likely to get robbed because they want to STEAL YOU GUNS AND SELL THEM. Jesus ******* Christ tell me your parents didn't pay any money for your education.

I understand your point of view. I also agree that certain criminals make a point of targeting homes and businesses where they know that firearms are kept or stored.
However the criminal's worst nightmare is breaking into a home while not knowing whether someone is at home, where they might be in their home and whether they have firearms at their disposal.
I think only an idiot would believe that a person is safer if criminals know that they have already ridden their home of any and all firearms.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The paper just kindly alerted criminals to which homes are safe to enter to rape or rob without fear of meeting deadly resistance.

Are you seriously this ******* stupid? Its EASY to avoid meeting deadly resistance in robbing a home with guns - you just wait until the occupants aren't in the building. My **** you're a retard. Criminals LIKE guns, if they know you have them in your home you are MORE likely to get robbed because they want to STEAL YOU GUNS AND SELL THEM. Jesus ******* Christ tell me your parents didn't pay any money for your education.

I understand your point of view. I also agree that certain criminals make a point of targeting homes and businesses where they know that firearms are kept or stored.
However the criminal's worst nightmare is breaking into a home while not knowing whether someone is at home, where they might be in their home and whether they have firearms at their disposal.
I think only an idiot would believe that a person is safer if criminals know that they have already ridden their home of any and all firearms.

A criminal that would break into someone's home without even determining if the occupants are present is probably just some crazy crackhead that you wouldn't even need a gun to defend against - one good whop on the head and he'll pass out. These types of criminals are generally malnourished, mentally retarded (from all the drugs), and will run like crazy at the first sign of danger.

Any criminal with any degree of sophistication whatsoever will break into your home while you are not there. Your guns will do no good then. Get a DOG. Dogs stop criminals BEFORE they ENTER your home. Unless you plan on sitting on your porch 24/7 with a loaded gun, guns only stop criminals AFTER they have already entered. I'd prefer the criminal never enter. That's why I have a 90 lb German Shepard/Weimeraner mix that might be mistaken for a black bear. Anyone willing to get through that to get to me probably isn't going to be stopped by any gun that I have stored safely because by the time I could get to it he'd have me.

I would rate the following on securing of your home

1) Dog
2) Alarm system
3) Gun


Gun owners like to tout statistics about crimes thwarted by guns - but there are no stats on the number of crimes that never even began because the criminal heard a dog and thought "its not worth it"

 

[Katzndogz]

While gun registration is a matter of public record, getting that information isn't easy. There are forms to be filled out and identification to be given. Once the paper published that information the ability of the government to gather information as to who was making the inquiry was taken away.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

While gun registration is a matter of public record, getting that information isn't easy. There are forms to be filled out and identification to be given. Once the paper published that information the ability of the government to gather information as to who was making the inquiry was taken away.

Did they break any laws in the publication?

I would personally only find a list of those with concealed carry permits useful to me. Ordinary gun owners aren't usually wackos. They're generally hunters, or folks who have inherited weapons, or they have just had a gun for protection and its no big deal. Its the ones that carry around loaded weapons in public that I want to avoid. THose guys are wackos.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Should the Federal Government censor the private media?

No.

States need to keep such info privileged.

Many do and are.

Why?