It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by AwakeinNM
Too stupid to realize that they just gave the criminals a roadmap for future guns runs???? The facist mind is very interesting indeed......
Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by AwakeinNM
Too stupid to realize that they just gave the criminals a roadmap for future guns runs???? The facist mind is very interesting indeed......
Originally posted by GArnold
I am just curious.. How many people have to die?
- 262,000,000 Murdered: [20th Century Democide]
- Over 133,147,000 Murdered: [Pre-Twentieth Century Democide]
Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5', then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century.
DEATH BY GOVERNMENT
Government killed 262 million people in the 20th century
- Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined.
- Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals.
How could governments kill so many people? The governments had the power - and the people, the victims, were unable to resist. The victims were unarmed.
Death by "Gun Control"
"...the tragic fact is that disarming victims leads to great bloodshed. I'm referring to the millions of people who died at the hands of their government over the past century. Most of these mass murders were preceded by a cynical and calculating "gun control" program, leading to eventual disarmament. Genocide followed soon thereafter."
Leave Mass Murder to the Professionals
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
SOURCE
Here you have a liberal media organization revealing the names and addresses of gun permit holders to the general public, just because the information is a "matter of public record". Is this really prudent by Gannett? Couldn't they be held liable if someone on that map became a target of some anti-gun lunatic who used the map to find their victim?
On the other hand, looking at the map gives me a warm fuzzy Christmasy feeling inside knowing that in uber-liberal areas of New York there are this many registered guns. This doesn't include the unregistered ones. When push comes to shove, you can plainly see that the US military and all police agencies combined are WAY outnumbered.
Viva la Second Amendment!
Originally posted by chadderson
All one needs to do is post the information on the fella that decided to oust the law abiding permit holders and see what he thinks himself. See how he feels to be 'labeled'.
Originally posted by angrysniper
Hope she's enjoying a taste of her own medicine:
Sauce for the goose or, home address and phone number of Journal-News publisher
"Let’s turn the tables on the Journal and see how they like it!"
There's her phone number and address, as well as that of her CEO.
Originally posted by GArnold
Hate to break this to you... it is perfectly legal to do what they did.
I am just curious.. How many people have to die?
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
SOURCE
Here you have a liberal media organization revealing the names and addresses of gun permit holders to the general public, just because the information is a "matter of public record". Is this really prudent by Gannett? Couldn't they be held liable if someone on that map became a target of some anti-gun lunatic who used the map to find their victim?
On the other hand, looking at the map gives me a warm fuzzy Christmasy feeling inside knowing that in uber-liberal areas of New York there are this many registered guns. This doesn't include the unregistered ones. When push comes to shove, you can plainly see that the US military and all police agencies combined are WAY outnumbered.
Viva la Second Amendment!
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by AwakeinNM
Gannett is NOT "liberal".
Is everything that disagrees with you, "liberal" in a sense?
Really? What would you say about Fox News if they published the names of all the prescription weed cardholders in Colorado?
I thought so.edit on 25-12-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by GArnold
Hate to break this to you... it is perfectly legal to do what they did. For 15 years Newspapers have been publishing peoples identities that are sex predators. If it is in the public record that means it is open to be public information. You realize as well the second amendment really did not have to do with gun ownership per se. It was a vehicle so that armed militias could resist an unjust government. The framers had no idea it would turn out like this... a cycle of violence with no end in sight. As long as good guys need guns for protection and bad guys need guns for protection against the good guys this is a no win situation. I am just curious.. How many people have to die?
"Public records are documents or pieces of information that are not considered confidential. For example, in California, when a couple fills out a marriage license application, they have the option of checking the box as to whether the marriage is "confidential" (Record will be closed, and not opened to public once recorded) or "public" (record will become public record once recorded). Basically, if the marriage record is public, a copy of the record can be ordered from the county in which the marriage occurred.[1]""
en.wikipedia.org...
When can an individual sue for public disclosure of private facts?
Generally, the material published must be private information that “is not of legitimate concern to the public.” Its disclosure must also be “highly offensive to a reasonable person.” Material private enough to trigger this tort claim could include disclosure of sexual orientation, medical history, or other personal, private facets of a person’s life. The pressing question in public disclosure of private-facts cases is whether the information is newsworthy or of legitimate concern to the public. Newsworthiness is evaluated by an examination of several factors, including the social value of the disclosed material, the depth of intrusion into personal life, and the extent to which the person is already in public view. Even Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren, authors of a famous 1890 law review article, “The Right To Privacy,” wrote: “The right to privacy does not prohibit any publication of matter which is of public or general interest.”