The Witch Hunt Against Gun Owners

Originally posted by Spuggy

Less guns = less gun crime. Full stop. It's not a hard equation regardless of where you stand on the issue.

So..... more guns = more gun crime? How about the Swiss? An assault rifle in every home.

Regardless less "x" equaling less "x" crime doesnt do anything about crime.

Replace guns with whatever you want you still have crime.

How about less criminals=less crime? Or less murderers= less murder?

Its the same bull either way.

How do you expect to rid the world of guns? I catch wife with the mailman Ill stap them, beat them, harpoon them, get them with a bow and arrow, run over them with the car, burn the house down. But its all good because I didnt shoot them?

If youre going to say something as open ended and weak as "less guns=less gun crime" to prove your point why not just say less murderers=less murder and try to rid the world of murderers? Hell, less rocks=less rock crimes. Ban the rocks. It isnt the murderers fault he beat his neighbor to death. Its because that evil rock was just an arms reach away.

Oh, dont forget less penises=less rape. Please hand over your penis or at least get it registered so we can trace the discharge back to you.

Originally posted by Infoholic
Please excuse my slow thought process this morning, al...
What is your name?
What is your address?
What is your SSN?
What is your phone number?

As a matter of record the ONLINE (not printed in the paper...the ONLINE) list only had names and addresses...not SSN or phone numbers... also as a matter of record the reporter who got the list copied it from the state ONLINE list of holders of concealed weapons permits. Something you can still get via the state website even though the paper has pulled it from their website. SO yes it was perfectly legal.

So much for being an infoholic... perhaps you should go to IA.



[edit on 26-3-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by grover
perhaps you should go to IA.

[edit on 26-3-2007 by grover]

do you dislike him so bad you really want him to go to iowa?

thats just.....mean.

ok im kidding i know what you meant by ia and this posts contributes nothing to the conversation other than to maybe lighten the mood.

laugh a bit folks, you'll live longer.

I try in my own meager way to crack jokes and poke fun at the self-righteous... so many on here take themselves way too seriously and seem to have lost their sense of humor. IA just seemed to fit perfectly with infoholic.

Originally posted by grover
As a matter of record the ONLINE (not printed in the paper...the ONLINE) list only had names and addresses...not SSN or phone numbers... also as a matter of record the reporter who got the list copied it from the state ONLINE list of holders of concealed weapons permits. Something you can still get via the state website even though the paper has pulled it from their website. SO yes it was perfectly legal.

So much for being an infoholic... perhaps you should go to IA.

Hmm... interesting post, grover. It's ok for one form of publication, but not others, legally speaking, of course. Shear brilliance.

Releasing one's information without their consent, whether that's "online" or in the newspaper has no significant difference. The American public has rights to privacy in either.

Are you suggesting that I may publish your information online, without repercussions of the legal nature? Not without your consent, I sure can't. Just the same as the article in question has done, breaching privacy issues for the persons named.

The reason I asked for the SSN's and phone numbers was to completely compile information about you (generalized). If there's nothing illegal about it, why would you have such a problem with that information being published, "online" none the less, without your consent?

I disagree that simply copying it from one source to another would make it legal. It is a breach of privacy for the individuals to have their information published (anywhere) without their consent. I'm willing to bet, if someone wished, they could easily sue the state for their right to privacy being tarnished.

No one has the right to invade someone's privacy, without their consent.

With your half-cocked ideals ensuring an issue of legality with the means that you have, you're the last one to call the kettle black.

Originally posted by grover
... so many on here take themselves way too seriously and seem to have lost their sense of humor.

I apologize in advance for your lack of concern with your rights, but I do know mine, and I hold them very dear. Maybe you should learn what your rights are and ask yourself if you really appreciate having them.

Oh I am fully aware of my rights. And yes I would be annoyed as well. No one has asked me what I thought of them posting the information. Personally I thought is was a rather boneheaded move but in keeping with Va laws perfectly legal.

Originally posted by grover
Oh I am fully aware of my rights.

Here's something for you to chew on, grover.

4. In order to preserve the rights guaranteed a citizen in a free society, legislation is necessary to establish
procedures to govern information systems containing records on individuals.
C. Recordkeeping agencies of the Commonwealth and political subdivisions shall adhere to the following
principles of information practice to ensure safeguards for personal privacy:
1. There shall be no personal information system whose existence is secret.
2. Information shall not be collected unless the need for it has been clearly established in advance.
3. Information shall be appropriate and relevant to the purpose for which it has been collected.
source

Now, I've only copied the 1st three... but that should be enough. Looks to me like you've got a right to privacy in Virginia. Oh wait, you might want to pay attention to #2. Let's look at the law for getting the Concealed Carry Permit, as by Virginia Law.

Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry.
A. If any person carries about his person, hidden from common observation, (i) any pistol, revolver, or other weapon designed or intended to propel a missile of any kind by action of an explosion of any combustible material; (ii) any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, machete, razor, slingshot, spring stick, metal knucks, or blackjack; (iii) any flailing instrument consisting of two or more rigid parts connected in such a manner as to..........
VIRGINIA CODE § 18.2-308

As not to waste space on ATS, I'm only posting the opening section of the actual Virginia Code dealing with personal defense, weapons, and the like. Nowhere in this code ("law") does it state your personal information is required to be placed on a list of any sort. You'll only have your information "recorded" long enough to process through the court and sheriff's department. I would suggest you read the actual laws concerning your abilities to gain the permit without having your personal information spread worldwide. I know I would.

APPLICATION FOR CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA CODE § 18.2-308 - Here's the actual permit application for your state. Nowhere on that application does it "clearly established in advance" the need for your collected information, as required by both your state, and federal law.

Originally posted by grover
And yes I would be annoyed as well.

I hope you're really annoyed, now. Hopefully you'll be on the side of the privacy deprived persons, and assist them in filing a law suit against both the paper, and the state.

Originally posted by grover
No one has asked me what I thought of them posting the information.

I would ask you how you feel, but you already stated that.

Originally posted by grover
Personally I thought is was a rather boneheaded move but in keeping with Va laws perfectly legal.

If you can show me somewhere else that would disprove what I've shown (by your state's written law), then I will personally post a new thread about this topic and concede from the get go, that "Grover Knows More Than Infoholic, About Virginia State Law."

Fair enough?



[edit on 3/26/2007 by Infoholic]

Well I am living in the city whose newspaper action started this thread... Roanoke Va. The matter has been throughly debated both on air (TV and radio) on line and in print and the consenus has been consistent that the paper did nothing illegal in publishing the list, boneheaded and ill advised yes, but not illegal.

Public disclosure of concealed carry licenses varies from state to state. Eighteen states protect permit holders' privacy from public view. Virginia is one of 17 states that make licensee records public. If information is public, does it make it right for a newspaper to publish it? The media exercise discretion all the time in withholding the names of minors or rape victims. Why should the privacy of law-abiding concealed handgun permit holders be treated with any less concern?
source

Quoted right from the OP's source, they say Virginia makes licensee records public.

As I've pointed out by both Virginia State Law, both on privacy and on the gun/license ownership, and by Federal Privacy Law... your stance, and that which was published in this article, is incorrect.

However, again....

Originally posted by Infoholic
If you can show me somewhere else that would disprove what I've shown (by your state's written law), then I will personally post a new thread about this topic and concede from the get go, that "Grover Knows More Than Infoholic, About Virginia State Law."

[edit on 3/26/2007 by Infoholic]

It is not my stance... I have said that I thought it was a boneheaded thing to do but at the same time names and addresses really reveal very little no one on the street, unless they know you are going to learn from the list that you are carrying.

Originally posted by grover
It is not my stance... I have said that I thought it was a boneheaded thing to do but at the same time names and addresses really reveal very little no one on the street, unless they know you are going to learn from the list that you are carrying.

You missed the principle completely, grover. Your stance is that it was not illegal, of which I have proved you completely wrong. I've pointed it out in "your" laws that say it is in fact illegal to break the laws that they have set in place for this very issue.

Next question for you.

If they were to have the power rangers displayed on tv in Virginia, write about them in the paper, and talk about them on the radio, aaaaand post about them on the internet...saying they are real... are you going to believe in them, too? You must, after all it was on the media sources that you trust.

Well I guess living here and following the debate for the past couple weeks doesn't mean anything at all then since infoholic knows everything about Va law. And where is he from?

If they were to have bush minor displayed on tv going on about WMD and the papers write about them, and talk about them on the radio, and post about them on the internet...saying they are real... are you going to believe in them, too?

Your scarcasm was totally unneccesary

[edit on 26-3-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by grover
Well I guess living here and following the debate for the past couple weeks doesn't mean anything at all then since infoholic knows everything about Va law. And where is he from?

Am I and everyone else here at ATS supposed to buy what you're saying, just because you said so? :shk:

Can you site any shred of information to the legality of this article? At all? Ask Big Bird if he's got some info. How about Elmo, and not that low budget, cause I said so Elmo, either.

You can follow the debate all you want, but that is meaningless if you don't have your facts straight, grover.

As far as where I'm from? That's completely irrelevant. Besides, that information is protected by that glorious little thing called a privacy law.


Over and out from The Land of Oz




Info.

I'll have you know that I'm not going to edit a post after someone responds to it. That's kinda low... even for you, grover.

Originally posted by grover
If they were to have bush minor displayed on tv going on about WMD and the papers write about them, and talk about them on the radio, and post about them on the internet...saying they are real... are you going to believe in them, too?

Bush 43 can take a flying leap. He's already done the things you are describing and he's already been proven a liar. So, yes, I'd believe him.

Absolutely not.

Originally posted by grover
Your scarcasm was totally unneccesary.

Oh, really?....

Originally posted by grover
So much for being an infoholic... perhaps you should go to IA. - This post.

I try in my own meager way to crack jokes and poke fun at the self-righteous... so many on here take themselves way too seriously and seem to have lost their sense of humor. IA just seemed to fit perfectly with infoholic. - This post.

Well I guess living here and following the debate for the past couple weeks doesn't mean anything at all then since infoholic knows everything about Va law. And where is he from?
- This post.

You were saying?

like I said your scarcasm is totally unnecessary. I am not a gun owner so I haven't gone digging into it but i have followed the local debate and if that is not good enough for you so be it but you can take your meaningless scarcasm and sit on it and rotate. it does nothing for your argument except to make you look small and petty but then again I don't expect anything better from right wingers.

Hey!!!!

I'm, a right winger and you like me Grover... LOL

Come on guys, the threads have gotten WAY to personal here of late with insults and bad tempers all around...

Can't we all just shake and go back to the debate on an intellectual level?

Please....

Semper

Originally posted by grover
like I said your scarcasm is totally unnecessary. I am not a gun owner so I haven't gone digging into it but i have followed the local debate and if that is not good enough for you so be it but you can take your meaningless scarcasm and sit on it and rotate. it does nothing for your argument except to make you look small and petty but then again I don't expect anything better from right wingers.

You still haven't sited any legal source to make your argument. The "cause I said so" just doesn't cut it on PTS.

Not much of a debate semper, legal sources on one side and opinion on the other.
As I don't live in Va. I don't know the law but, no response as to sources and mudslinging usually doesn't lead to credibility points.

I have read your responses in other threads grover,and I am disapointed with your posts here.

"Do you know what the Bill of Rights are? "

yes I think so... here we are:

en.wikipedia.org...

It's an amendment... a frequently amended amendment at that. In fact, reading through all that it looks like it could be regarded as an addendum. So I submit that you should probably be refering to it as the 2nd addendum anyway.

"Do you live in the US"
God no. I spent a few years there. horrid little country. Give me Sri lanka any day.

"less murderers=less murder"
Now you've got it. Less murderers does equal less murder, less guns does equal less gun crime. As I said, regardless of where you stand on the issue it's a pretty simple equation.

Originally posted by Spuggy

"less murderers=less murder"
Now you've got it. Less murderers does equal less murder, less guns does equal less gun crime. As I said, regardless of where you stand on the issue it's a pretty simple equation.

Okay I get where youre at. Never mind that you pull one line out of my post and use it in a manner that assumes complete dirsregard for the rest of the post but youre trying to compare a speciffic criminal (murderer) and the speciffic crime (murder) to guns and gun crimes. Maybe you dont understand that the term "gun crimes" involves everything from pistol whipping (assault), improper storage/transport, and breach of peace to murder. The actual "gun crimes" that require a gun to commit are basically transportation and posession crimes. All misdemeanors. Any of these other crimes I can commit with a bar stool or a fork.