Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Gannett Outs Gun Permit Holders in Upstate NY with Interactive Map

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   
This information regarding concealed carry licensed individuals isn't public here in Texas - but then again this isn't liberal NY.
2nd line

ganjoa
edit on 25-12-2012 by ganjoa because: removed insult




posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   

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......


More worringly for those without guns listed at their address is the fact any criminal who can read, will now know which homes have protection, and more importantly from their point of view, which homes DON'T have protection!

If i wasn't on the 'yes, gun here' list...i'd be at the nearest gun store arming myself as soon as i read that news story...a home listed as without guns, is a MUCH more attractive target than homes listed as having guns present.

Just as a school in a so-called 'gun free zone' is a much more attractive target to a loony, than one where the staff are all armed and defended.

If anything, the story should make people buy MORE guns, not less. That's if the people at the addresses not listed as gun owners have the slightest bit of common sense.

edit on 25-12-2012 by MysterX because: added more info



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   
A thief's guide to robbery without getting shot. How convenient! Make it a whole map of the United States and compile it into a Thievery for Dummies Guide.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   

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......

Just gave a road map of who to rob.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by GArnold
I am just curious.. How many people have to die?

One look in the rear view mirror will give you the answer to that question...

Our "governments" are the REAL mass murderers.

Mass murder by gun control has happened over and over throughout history.

WATCH this video:




- 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



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   

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!


It appears that Gannett hasn't got one iota of common sense. This is a bad move. Calling out innocent people, possibly putting a crosshair on them for criminals, harassment and a host of other things.

I hope that these people get together and file a massive lawsuit against Gannet. One so large and so drawn out that they put them out of business! The first amendment in this case, fails. Miserably.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by chadderson
 


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'.

They have now outed EVERYONE who is behind that Journal News "story"...


- The CEO of Gannett (parent company of the Journal News)
- Journal News president
- The editors
- The reporter on the story

Sheer genius I tell yah... GENIUS!!!

This article is a MUST read!


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.


Read some of the comments:




posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GArnold

Hate to break this to you... it is perfectly legal to do what they did.


No one said it was illegal, just bad taste. I wonder if someone had their house broken into a few days after and their guns stolen could they sue the paper? BTW I think they lost more subscriptions...will not take too much more and they are done anyways...kind of nailed their own coffin this time...hehe


I am just curious.. How many people have to die?


About 3 million per year, and of that about 10k in gun murders, 6k in other murders...hell 40k of people die from poisoning in the US every year.

We NEED to control POISNING first...how many more need to die until we do?


My point is we are focusing on an area that really has a small impact over all, but we want to effect every American in the process. If I applied this same logic to conditions that kill much more per year everyone would look at me as if I was crazy.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


I love it!!!



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   

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!




What does it matter that the guns are in "uber-liberal areas?" Is that because you believe what you hear in the mainstream media, about "liberals" being somehow anti-gun?

The mainstream media really shouldn't be trusted all that much.

IMO true "liberals" are....well... "liberal" and I've known plenty of people who held what might be called "liberal" values and were very pro-gun. Based on general standards, I doubt anyone would mistake me for a "conservative," and yet I am about as pro-gun as they come.

You really should not believe everything you hear on Fox News (or any other mainstream source, for that matter.)

And why is it that some of you have to pretty much volunteer for and allow yourselves to be slotted into a very black-white, left-right, liberal-conservative paradigm? Why do some of you seem to feel the need to make absolutely everything a liberal vs conservative, us vs them issue? Not everyone is a stereotype or a caricature. Not everyone follows the "official party line" on every issue. Some of us enjoy thinking for ourselves. I know that's not what Fox tells you (or encourages you to do)... but it's the truth.

No wonder "they're" still using "divide and conquer." Works like a charm, from the looks of it.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I realize that privacy is an illusion, but what sincere reason is there that my neighbor would need to know I had a pistol?

I mean, if someone were being robbed, instead of calling 911, they could find a gun owner on the map and call them for help... add a "CALL FOR HELP" button to make it useful. (sarcasm)

Flipside, if a criminal needed a gun, he knows where to get one now. Why not just add a "BUY IT NOW" button so thugs can be notified when the gun owner isn't home, and just go pick it up.

Sad.

Concealed weapon? Not so much. I bet the folks that publish this stuff are the same folks that leave un-cut cardboard boxes, from their Plasma TV's, out on the curb for all to see.
edit on 25-12-2012 by zayonara because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   

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)

I'd call them felons. Because revealing confidential medical information is a felony.


I saw a lot of people not understanding something in the other thread.....
let me explain why these houses are now targets for criminals. Because criminals oftentimes are poor and can't afford guns. They are also probably not working during the day. So they just have to break in when the owners are at work, for a free gun. Do you get why these gun owners now have targets on their homes?



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 03:40 AM
link   
First this is CLEARLY an article SOLELY based on a political viewpoint and attempting to influence the public.
NOT a newsworthy article of public benifit.

I thought the main stream press accuses fox news of and condems?

Second alot of personal information is while classified as public information is NOT readily available or publically published.

Nor is the information just "easily" available. Alot is available but requires research (time), filing of paperwork, or in short a paper trail of some sort. In other words if something was found out and used for any reason they could attempt to find out who got the info in the first place.

Also as someone here pointed out you can get the info, but publishing it in an open forum "just because its public" can be illegal and/or the person who the info is on could have justification to sue you. Even if your the press.

If you here who continue to try to justify it by the moniker of "public available" remember this.

Someone could use the same reasoning to publish your name, your kids name, where they go to school, where you work, your address, and other personal information. There is so much information publically available that it would scare you silly.
Would you anti-gun (real reason for publishing it) people and the reporter be as accepting if someone published something on you that was publically available?

Lastly I take a quote form "Absence of Malice is a 1981 American drama film starring Paul Newman".

"When President Ford assasin was stopped by (cant remember the name) it was fact and newsworthy. When they published he was gay it was fact but was it newsworthy?"

Side note if you can see this film. It showed the abuse done by the press, the arrogance of reporters, and the UNJUSTIFIED harm it can do.

It was a warning and prophetic when you see what the press is today



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Listing people's names and addresses online for whatever reason without their permission is wrong. The government or any other business or organization making this information public is wrong too. They treaded a fine line when they started doing this for arrests and convicted criminals, but this crosses that line. and listing them with further information or agenda that is bound to incite others or make them a target is even more wrong. Plenty of people, law enforcement and bank employees among the prime offenders, with access to this kind information use it to stalk and troll. I hope these people sue the crap out of Gannett.

ETA: And this map is by no means complete or accurate either, as many have pointed out, and as the "article" itself may have stated. Lots of grandfathered and unregistered guns in many. many,. many more homes than are listed here.

edit on 12/26/2012 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   

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...


And here's why it may not be perfectly legal (I posted this on another similar thread):

While it may very well be public information, to publish it may still not be legal. Anyone can look up those records if they want to take the time to do so, but putting it out in a public forum may get the newspaper in hot water.


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.”

First Amendment Center

According to the above, the published information must be newsworthy and have a legitimate concern to the public. The names of gun owners is neither. It exists only to raise concern or fear, and may actually cause harm to those in the article. It only lists people with permits to own guns, not people who actually own guns.

If some anti-gun loony decides to take action because of the article and one of those people in the list is harmed, he and the newspaper would both be liable.

This is yellow journalism at its finest.

/TOA



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
This is what the gun-grabbers are going for:



Yes freinds, in just two minutes a day you too can shape popular opinion. You too can oppress a minority. You too can have the safety and security of knowing not one man woman or child can defend against any threat or any aggression without the approval and sanction of the glorious state.
edit on 26-12-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by GArnold
 


You are wrong. The fourteenth amendment clarifies that the second is for personal protection as well as the freedmen act which is a companion to the fourteenth.


Besides militias are not illegal. We can and do form them still.

We also have many private security firms that act as private contractors to the worlds governments or private citizens that train in the USA in militia like installations and militia like organizations.
edit on 26-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join