Magox Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 No you dipshit, people just don't want to have their names and address along with a map pinpointing their home plastered all over the local newspaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Out-!@#$ing-standing.... http://www.newrochelletalk.com/content/map-where-are-journal-news-employees-your-neighborhood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 It gets better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 For curiosity sake.....do corrections officers and law enforcement have to register their personal weapons? Would they appear on the map? Cant imagine they would be too happy about angry felons knowing their home addresses.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) This is an attempt by the paper to stigmatize gun ownership (I think everyone figured that out). What would be the reaction if a registry of all people on food stamps or other government assistance was published in a similar attempt to stigmatize? My guess is that the left would be up in arms. It is strange to me that the pendulum of what is perceived as desirable and undesirable can shift so much in a society but clearly it does. You can agree or disagree with gun or welfare laws, but is it really fair to single out people that are obeying those laws? I understand and support government openness for policy setting, bids, internal communications and the like, but why are interactions between governments and law abiding individuals subject to the same openness? The gun owner and the welfare recipient are basically clients of the government. Public companies have to audit and publish their financials but they don't have to publish a list of their clients or accounts. We all have to file with the IRS but our returns aren't open to the public (are they?). Why are gun registrations open like that? Edited December 28, 2012 by OGTEleven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) Stigmatizing Gun Owners Makes Civil Debate Impossible Jonathan S. Tobin The decision of a newspaper in New York’s Westchester County to publish an interactive map that allowed readers to discover the names and addresses of owners of legal guns is generally being debated as one about whether the Gannett-owned Journal News showed good judgment. It didn’t, but the problem goes a lot deeper than whether or not a newspaper ought to publicize information that is legally available to the public in this manner. The controversy goes to the heart of the entire discussion about guns in this country. No matter what those behind this stunt say, this wasn’t about the safety of the community or the right of the public to information. Rather, this was about the desire on the part of some in the liberal mainstream media to stigmatize legal gun ownership and to whip up sentiment for not just tighter controls but an eventual ban. This makes it easier to understand why the National Rifle Association fiercely resists even the most reasonable gun control measures. If even those who have jumped through the not inconsiderable hoops erected by the authorities to gain a legal gun permit in New York are now to be treated as if they were the moral equivalent of sex offenders, it’s clear the goal of the anti-gun media is not just to focus discussion on assault weapons and large ammunition clips but to ban individual gun ownership altogether. The article accompanying the interactive map about “the gun owner next door” made it clear the boogeyman to those who wish to push more gun control legislation isn’t just an NRA leadership that is tone deaf to the country’s mood. It is the ordinary American exercising his right to possess a legal firearm while observing all the legal niceties. That’s made clear by a piece that begins by discussing a violent crime committed by a person with two unregistered guns but then quickly shifts to the discussion of who owns legal and registered guns. The conceit of the article is to heighten suspicion of all gun owners and to render them pariahs. That effect is not softened by the fact that the author notes that he has a legally registered pistol. For all of the incessant calls for civil debate from the liberal media, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes such a discussion impossible. Advocates of gun control in Congress claim that talk of banning all guns is crazy, but stunts like this demonstrate that such foolish ideas are bubbling very close to the surface in the liberal media. Broad support for some changes in existing gun laws probably exists right now in the wake of the Newtown massacre. But the chances for putting reasonable limits on military-style weapons or ammunition clips will be sunk if the anti-gun zealots in the media continue to show their real agenda is creating an atmosphere in which all firearms will be banned. Legal gun owners don’t deserve to have their privacy invaded or to be made the targets of criminals who will use the information published by the newspaper as a database to aid their efforts to steal weapons from their owners. Nor do they deserve to be hounded and abused in this manner. More to the point, this is exactly what should be avoided if the country is to have a discussion about guns that doesn’t boil down to a shouting match between those who want guns banned and those who want no restrictions or accountability. . Edited December 28, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) What would be the reaction if a registry of all people on food stamps or other government assistance was published in a similar attempt to stigmatize? My guess is that the left would be up in arms. No. Not at ALL! Actually, that is the problem with things like food stamps. It is too damn easy for the person on them and for the bureaucrat that administers said program. There is a need to restore the stigamatizing nature of collecting such assistance in order for one to be motivated to get off of said assistance. Unfortunately, technology and ease of use is not helping. Get rid of the "credit card" looking food stamps and restore the stigmatizing nature of the paper trail. Set up special lines in stores, publish lists of people on assistance. I know I will get slammed for this by the people who are also on my left. Legal gun owners don’t deserve to have their privacy invaded or to be made the targets of criminals who will use the information published by the newspaper as a database to aid their efforts to steal weapons from their owners. BINGO. I brought this up earlier in the thread. Owning a weapon (especially a gun that gets published) now becomes a liability and not and asset. If the government is innvolved w/guns and my tax dollars are going to the registration and regulation of such weapons... I would like to know who has them. Just as they publish the salaries of public officials, public records like building permits and what not... Why shouldn't this be public knowledge? This is an attempt by the paper to stigmatize gun ownership (I think everyone figured that out). What would be the reaction if a registry of all people on food stamps or other government assistance was published in a similar attempt to stigmatize? My guess is that the left would be up in arms. It is strange to me that the pendulum of what is perceived as desirable and undesirable can shift so much in a society but clearly it does. You can agree or disagree with gun or welfare laws, but is it really fair to single out people that are obeying those laws? I understand and support government openness for policy setting, bids, internal communications and the like, but why are interactions between governments and law abiding individuals subject to the same openness? The gun owner and the welfare recipient are basically clients of the government. Public companies have to audit and publish their financials but they don't have to publish a list of their clients or accounts. We all have to file with the IRS but our returns aren't open to the public (are they?). Why are gun registrations open like that? Because, again... It takes the asset of having a gun and turning it into a liability. We are down this road because of what is happening. The gun in itself is a powerful tool, as fire power increases, things will get worse. This is a attempt to weaken that asset. You know own a bunch of firearms? It now becomes a liability. There is nothing said in The Second that your right to bear arms carries unlimited power/asset of use. This (publication and if you feel stigmatized) is a very viable way of checking a very powerful admendment without damaging that admendment. Edited December 28, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 No. Not at ALL! Actually, that is the problem with things like food stamps. It is too damn easy for the person on them and for the bureaucrat that administers said program. There is a need to restore the stigamatizing nature of collecting such assistance in order for one to be motivated to get off of said assistance. Unfortunately, technology and ease of use is not helping. Get rid of the "credit card" looking food stamps and restore the stigmatizing nature of the paper trail. Set up special lines in stores, publish lists of people on assistance. I know I will get slammed for this by the people who are also on my left. BINGO. I brought this up earlier in the thread. Owning a weapon (especially a gun that gets published) now becomes a liability and not and asset. Who decides what gets stigmatized in society? A newspaper? And then they publish the associated list of private citizens? If gun ownership and foods stamps are on the naughty list, what might be next? Income under (or over) certain levels? A 1040 is something that is filed with the government just like a gun registration. Should that be published too? How about a kid that needs special assistance in the public school classroom? The parents need to fill out a form for that, right? A list of everyone on Medicare that takes Zoloft? Viagra? A list of all people that drive cars with low mileage? Gay couples that are married? My point is that many (almost all) individuals interact with government on an individual basis. Personally I think the documents filed by individuals with the government ought to be treated as private by the government, much like your doctor or lawyer would treat them. A conviction record, on the other hand is another matter in that the person has broken the law(s). You don't break any laws when applying for a gun permit or food stamps. Documents internal to the government should also be available. I'm not totally against things getting stigmatized, I think that has a useful place in society within limits, but information that should be private shouldn't be used as a vehicle for stigmatizing it. Stigmatizing groups (food stamp recipients, gun owners, whatever) only works if there is enough agreement that there is underlying "bad behavior". Naming an individual gun owner or food stamp recipient in writing seems beyond reasonable to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Who decides what gets stigmatized in society? A newspaper? And then they publish the associated list of private citizens? If gun ownership and foods stamps are on the naughty list, what might be next? Income under (or over) certain levels? A 1040 is something that is filed with the government just like a gun registration. Should that be published too? How about a kid that needs special assistance in the public school classroom? The parents need to fill out a form for that, right? A list of everyone on Medicare that takes Zoloft? Viagra? A list of all people that drive cars with low mileage? Gay couples that are married? My point is that many (almost all) individuals interact with government on an individual basis. Personally I think the documents filed by individuals with the government ought to be treated as private by the government, much like your doctor or lawyer would treat them. A conviction record, on the other hand is another matter in that the person has broken the law(s). You don't break any laws when applying for a gun permit or food stamps. Documents internal to the government should also be available. I'm not totally against things getting stigmatized, I think that has a useful place in society within limits, but information that should be private shouldn't be used as a vehicle for stigmatizing it. Stigmatizing groups (food stamp recipients, gun owners, whatever) only works if there is enough agreement that there is underlying "bad behavior". Naming an individual gun owner or food stamp recipient in writing seems beyond reasonable to me. Sure let it all ride. Guns are becoming a problem. I am not for scrapping the powerful Second. This takes some teeth out of owning the weapon itself. A societal/social check against firepower without scrapping a citizen's entitlement @ gun owership. Something to think about when deciding to own firearms. Why should that power go unchecked socially. And what I said above should be applied to the direct problems guns and massive firepower are creating in our society. We need to stay on that topic and forget about the slippery slope for a while. It keeps the Second intact and again removes the unchecked asset that gun owners are enjoying. Gun ownership now has a bit of liability. Nothing in the second prohibits this publication. ACTUALLY, it points to it w/the phrase: "Well regulated militia..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) It's not exactly a secret. You patrol the sector you live in and have your patrol vehicle is parked in your driveway. One of my coworkers was followed home and confronted in his front yard by a group of gang members. I've personally run into felons I've arrested when I'm off duty and out with my family. Why not get the govement out of welfare and let charities and churches take its place. Exactly. Many officer now park partrol cars @ residences in town. Of course they have weapons. There is a place for BOTH gov't and charities/faith based iniatives to co-exist. Eliminating one or the other, the system can't be trusted. Edited December 28, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Sure let it all ride. Guns are becoming a problem. I am not for scrapping the powerful Second. This takes some teeth out of owning the weapon itself. A societal/social check against firepower without scrapping a citizen's entitlement @ gun owership. Something to think about when deciding to own firearms. Why should that power go unchecked socially. And what I said above should be applied to the direct problems guns and massive firepower are creating in our society. We need to stay on that topic and forget about the slippery slope for a while. It keeps the Second intact and again removes the unchecked asset that gun owners are enjoying. Gun ownership now has a bit of liability. Nothing in the second prohibits this publication. ACTUALLY, it points to it w/the phrase: "Well regulated militia..." Crime rates overall have steadily declined in the US. But please continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Crime rates overall have steadily declined in the US. But please continue. BUT... Just as the stats between the Vikings and Bills are similiar... IT is all about the game breakers! Weapons of mass destruction are the game breakers. Throw the individual crime rates out the windows. We can't continue to lose the war but win the individual battles. CO, CT, and NY alone in 2012 define the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 BUT... Just as the stats between the Vikings and Bills are similiar... IT is all about the game breakers! Weapons of mass destruction are the game breakers. Throw the individual crime rates out the windows. We can't continue to lose the war but win the individual battles. CO, CT, and NY alone in 2012 define the war. What is a weapon of mass destruction and where and when has it been used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Sure let it all ride. Guns are becoming a problem. I am not for scrapping the powerful Second. This takes some teeth out of owning the weapon itself. A societal/social check against firepower without scrapping a citizen's entitlement @ gun owership. Something to think about when deciding to own firearms. Why should that power go unchecked socially. And what I said above should be applied to the direct problems guns and massive firepower are creating in our society. We need to stay on that topic and forget about the slippery slope for a while. It keeps the Second intact and again removes the unchecked asset that gun owners are enjoying. Gun ownership now has a bit of liability. Nothing in the second prohibits this publication. ACTUALLY, it points to it w/the phrase: "Well regulated militia..." So you wouldn't see a problem of publishing a list of the home addresses of all abortion doctors? Or all owners of SUVs? Or all married gay couples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 So you wouldn't see a problem of publishing a list of the home addresses of all abortion doctors? Or all owners of SUVs? Or all married gay couples? A more apt comparison would be to publish a list of everyone who has had an abortion along with their addreses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 What is a weapon of mass destruction and where and when has it been used? You are like a laser beam... Honed right into the bait, hook line and sinker! LoL. Oh... To answer your question: B-767-222 & B-767-222, Eastern US, 2001. 28/3000 What's a few 1000 among friends... A more apt comparison would be to publish a list of everyone who has had an abortion along with their addreses. Who was the abortion funded and or regulated by? Again.. The slippery slope arguments are silly. Heck... I am not gun owner... I wanna know where to go to when they fire up the local militia! You gun toting paranoid loons should be proud, not stigmatized, to be on the list! Maybe this will get me to get a weapon/gun so as to be on the list! Note to bad guys: Stay away! We are packing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 You are like a laser beam... Honed right into the bait, hook line and sinker! LoL. Oh... To answer your question: B-767-222 & B-767-222, Eastern US, 2001. 28/3000 What's a few 1000 among friends... Who was the abortion funded and or regulated by? Again.. The slippery slope arguments are silly. Heck... I am not gun owner... I wanna know where to go to when they fire up the local militia! You gun toting paranoid loons should be proud, not stigmatized, to be on the list! Maybe this will get me to get a weapon/gun so as to be on the list! Note to bad guys: Stay away! We are packing! Don't you ever get tired of playing the clown? You indicate in one post that WMD's were used in 2012 in CO, NY and Conn. I ask you what constitutes WMD and you refer to 9/11. You should thank God every day for your federal government employment, otherwise I don't see how you could support yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Don't you ever get tired of playing the clown? You indicate in one post that WMD's were used in 2012 in CO, NY and Conn. I ask you what constitutes WMD and you refer to 9/11. You should thank God every day for your federal government employment, otherwise I don't see how you could support yourself. There's a reason we call him "The Riddler". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Some people don't deserve reasonable responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Don't you ever get tired of playing the clown? You indicate in one post that WMD's were used in 2012 in CO, NY and Conn. I ask you what constitutes WMD and you refer to 9/11. You should thank God every day for your federal government employment, otherwise I don't see how you could support yourself. Again. Simmer down. You read my first post... You are the one playing the clown, because all you can do is make personal attacks. Tell us a little about yourself... You probably won't. Now shut up and get on the list (if you own a gun). Suck it up. Nothing says they can't do. They will "regulate" your gun ownership, like it or not... Stop beinig a whiny school girl. There's a reason we call him "The Riddler". Yes, there is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts