The Witch Hunt Against Gun Owners

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   

The Witch Hunt Against Gun Owners


news.yahoo.com

"The Second Amendment," Charlton Heston used to say, "is America's first freedom." The Second secures the rest.

It's a message narcissistic journalists need to hear again. A decade ago, Heston chastised the media in a National Press Club speech for its collective ignorance, apathy and open hostility toward gun owners' rights
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I can't belive they would publicly show a list of concealed weapons holders. I would think this was against the law in some way. Then again, I guess it is public information. This is a shame.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 07:35 AM
link   
I live in Roanoke valley where this happened and it is no big deal and certainly no witch hunt against gun owners like Ms. Malkin wants to make it out to be. Nor is there a witch hunt against gun owners any more than there is an attack against Christianity no matter how much the hard right wants you to think there is. Think about it for a minute.... say there are 2,000 people in your area with permits to carry concealed guns, unless you are personally aquainted with one, all they are, are names you will not be able to randomly walk up to someone and say hey you carry a concealed weapon. Personally unless you are a cop of some sort I do not see why you need to carry a concealed weapon in the first place... there is just something sneaky about it in my book. I believe is strict gun controls but I am not opposed to guns... the two are not mutually exclusive attitudes.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Thanks for the info. Thats good to know. I'm glad I am getting the real situation from you. Sometimes the media does tend to exaggerate. Thank you



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   
What's The Point?

If they want to publish the names of CCW permit holders, then they might as well just carry the damn things openly.

This is harassment, pure and simple, and I will never agree to any policy or ploy which deliberately singles out law-abiding citizens in this manner.

Why not just publish the names and addresses of people who don't own guns? That would be okay, wouldn't it?

No thanks.


[edit on 3/25/2007 by Majic]



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   
grover:
carry concealed weapons for the armed robber who wants to take everything you have on you or worse, bash you over the head and rape your wife. Instead he comes up behind you, bashes you in the head, and gets a piece of lead in the stomach from your armed wife.

There is no reason NOT to have concealed weapons, so long as you have them legally. If I legally own a gun, it can get traced back to me whether its concealed or not.

Stop worrying about legal gun owners and where they take there guns, start worrying about ILLEGAL gun owners, and what they plan to do with those guns.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Not illegal no, but not right either. I would agree with Majic that it is harrasment. Gun ownership has been under attack off and on for as long as I can remember, which goes back almost fourty years. This is merely another way of doing so.

Concealed carry is very important for some. People who carry large sums of money, or other negotiable articles...for their names to be out there is endangering them unnessecarily. Maybe not a great deal, but any extra danger is uncalled for.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Michele Malkin could teach Rush Limbaugh a thing or two about propaganda. She often lies, omits facts, etc. to prove her point - which is usually pointless. She's not a journalist, she's a Geraldo Rivera sensationalist.
Anyway,having said that, it does seem that publishing the names of concealed gun carriers rather defeats the purpose of carrying a concealed weapon. The act of publishing names of those with concealed weapons seems like the same thing as publishing names of known child molesters - except that having a permit for a concealed weapon isn't a crime and doesn't hurt anyone. But they're still trying to demonize these gun carriers the same as child molesters.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Just another attack by the Extreme Left Wing Liberal Anti Gun Crowd....

They can't win on statistics,
They can't win on public opinion,
They can't win on the Constitution,

Their argument holds no weight at all, so they resort to tactics like this....

A few years ago they even published something stating that "ALL" police were in favor of gun control...

THAT was also a crock....

Having been in the FOP for years, I can safely say the majority of Law Enforcement, that work the streets where it matters, are IN FAVOR of CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS...

The more weapons we have in the hands of honest, legal, gun owners, the safer I am out there...

Semper



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
What's The Point?

If they want to publish the names of CCW permit holders, then they might as well just carry the damn things openly.

I'm pretty sure the "concealed" aspect is intended to put the nervous at ease.
An "out of sight out of mind" kind of thing. I, personally, would be more at ease knowing which people I'm dealing with are carrying by not concealing them. Forewarned is for-armed, as they say.

This is harassment, pure and simple, and I will never agree to any policy or ploy which deliberately singles out law-abiding citizens in this manner.

It is harassment, but the news folk seem to believe anything they dig up is fit for print. I wonder if the people on the list can sue the paper? Even though the information is public record. I wouldn't want every criminal in town to know weather or not I had weapons in the house. Could it be considered endangerment?

Why not just publish the names and addresses of people who don't own guns? That would be okay, wouldn't it?

It must be. Check out the phone book.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   
{Uses his best Clint Eastwood voice}

"I can't remember if my name was on that list or not. Do you? Well, do you, punk"?



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Interesting that they released names that should not have been released. I wonder whats up with that?


The Roanoke Times on Monday night removed the online database of registered concealed handgun permit holders from its website ~ people have notified us that the list includes names that should not have been released.

Gun owner database removed



Turnabout is fair play!


the group might publish a photo of Trejbal's home on its own website -

along with his address, the cost of the house and all other public information pertaining to Trejbal.

It may do the same for other executives at the newspaper, he added.

*Note* Trebal wrote the original article that published the database

I don't care who you are, that there's funny!

[edit on 3/25/07 by makeitso]



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
that is so wrong some of these people on the list were domestic abuse victims. and this idiot reporter put their street addresses on the net.
they are asking for a gunfight for their paper to report usually if a woman asks for a concealed permit in a dm sitution it means her ex is very likely to ignore a dnr or order of protection . usually you aren't allowed to give out their addresses just for that reason. and for people who think gun control works so well look up crime statics in countries that do not allow firearms. the criminals will buy them illiegally or use a different type of weapon.


DCP

posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   
if there is a smart criminal out there, they could have went onto the website find out who DOESN'T own a gun and then go rob them. I would make the debate that reveling the list hurt non gun owners more then gun owners.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by DCP
if there is a smart criminal out there, they could have went onto the website find out who DOESN'T own a gun and then go rob them. I would make the debate that reveling the list hurt non gun owners more then gun owners.


Except for the fact that the published database included the full address of gun owners. Who wants their name and address published?


"I've moved twice to get away from a violent ex. Now I have to move
again. I really appreciate you publishing my address. Gee, thanks."

a parole officer ~ had THREE parolees show up at his residence, one while only his wife and child were at home! All three admitted to getting his address from the list published on the Internet by the Roanoke Times.

www2.vcdl.org...
www2.vcdl.org...


Guess the paper ignored their own privacy policy.


Here's a good laugh. From the Roanoke Times' Privacy Policy page:

"We will not disclose any personal information without your advance
permission
except when we believe the law requires us to do so or the
disclosure is necessary to protect the rights or property of Times-World
Corp."

www2.vcdl.org...



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   
It just seems that personal information that can potentially cause harm to someone should not be released publicly. Is there not any way to be put on a list that is not "public" information? Probably not. Just an idea



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Here's my $.02.

The concealed carry permit is bologna. You shouldn't have to get a permit, under our Constitution, to carry a weapon. Besides, there's no need to have to hide the weapon, but that's just personal preference. If you wish to carry a weapon in public... out in the open... you can.

When the concealed carry permit issue began, I swore to myself that I would not get the permit, because I whole heartedly believed it would be a way for the Government to keep tabs on those that have weapons, because...

Currently, in order to purchase a weapon, all that is needed is to run your background to see if you have felony charges or the such against you that would legally prevent you from owning such a weapon. However, that is not a registration process. When I purchase a weapon, I do not register it either, for the same reason.

They might not have began the actual witch hunt for weapons owners, but I foresee it's in the near future.

As far as making a public listing of who does and does not hold permits, that is IMO, an invasion of your privacy. I don't have to share my personal information with anyone, unless I choose to make that information publicly known. Regardless of the idea of 2,000 people in your area and you not knowing them all... the fact of the matter is it's not a "list for the public" that should be worrying anyone.

The weapons in question are for self defense, against criminals/enemies, foreign and domestic, that will not follow common laws under any guise.



Info.

[edit on 3/25/2007 by Infoholic]



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   
That's right, Info. We can just strap a pistol and holster on our hips and go anywhere we please in public. The police don't like it, and will harass you, but it is completely legal. I know a few people who openly pack routinely.

[edit on 3/25/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by proteus33
that is so wrong some of these people on the list were domestic abuse victims. and this idiot reporter put their street addresses on the net.
they are asking for a gunfight for their paper to report usually if a woman asks for a concealed permit in a dm sitution it means her ex is very likely to ignore a dnr or order of protection . usually you aren't allowed to give out their addresses just for that reason. and for people who think gun control works so well look up crime statics in countries that do not allow firearms. the criminals will buy them illiegally or use a different type of weapon.


Exactly! Now a DV victim can do everything right: get a restraining order, move & get nonpublished phone number, and a gun for protection with concealed weapon permit. The batterer/stalker just has to look up her info on such a website and go to her house while she's asleep and kill her anyway.

I personally know for a fact that Virginia does NOT enforce restraining orders even if the victim does everything right. The man can literally kick your door in, but the cops will NOT arrest him and then you get in trouble with your landlord because he kicked the door in. Been there. Done that.

He can beat you in front of the cops around there and the cops will watch like it's live entertainment. BTDT

The courts will blame the victim saying she must have done something to provoke it and let him go every time. BTDT

That's the way the courts are in Virginia.

My ex wrote me letters describing how he was going to kill me and my daughter and lick the blood up with his tongue. The judge said there was nothing threatening about the letters and that there was nothing wrong with a husband writing his wife a letter (we were still married but separated at the time). The judge found him not guilty and let him go.

I was even turned down for a restraining order no less than 15 times (I lost count after that) because we were married. I was separated from him. I'd show up in court with injuries, bruises, letters where he threatened me, and all he'd have to do is tell the judge that he was just trying to work out the marriage and I'd get scolded like a child for complaining about his antics by the judge and get turned down every time.

That is the way battered women are treated in Virginia.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I am in favor of tight gun controls... I see no harm in a waiting period, or a back ground check or a limit of the number of guns you can buy at one time... I am more worried about the person who doesn't want to wait but wants his gun now... who is skittish about a back ground check and who wants to buy multiple guns at once... to me such objections suggest more than anything something to hide...

but at the same time I say to hell with the criminals... if guns are outlawed only the government will have guns and they scare me far more than any criminal does.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join