Blogger publishes names, addresses of newspaper staff after gun-permit database

page: 3
46
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Mixed feelings about this. One part of me says good...they really deserved it. But perhaps the wiser, saner part says that stooping to the same level and doing the same to them just seems wrong. Where would this end?

Maybe the ACLU or someone like that could take them to court for this violation and make their lives miserable. Then again, Gannett (or whoever it was ultimately responsible for publishing this information) could probably fight for decades in court and not even feel the pinch.


Take them to court for what violation?

It's not illegal to publish names and addresses.




posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Unless I overlooked it, I did not see the link to the blog in question anywhere in this thread:

Sauce for the goose or, home address and phone number of Journal-News publisher


Originally posted by angrysniper
Hope she's enjoying a taste of her own medicine:


"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.


Some of the comments:




posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
How did the original article in the Journal News ever make it out in the first place? Whomever gave the OK to go ahead with this had to have envisioned some sort of response. Where was their responsibility to their employees? Perhaps their zealousness blinded them to the reality outside their door.

Part of me says you reap what you sew (sow, ???) and let it be. Part of me is concerned with the escalation because any government responses will not be sane.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
turn about is fair play - and most news papers are left leaning - no matter by design or peer pressure.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
You knew it was coming:

SOURCE

If you're a publisher, and you are going to be irresponsible for the sake of your politics, then you risk being held to your own standards.
 

edit on Thu Dec 27 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: Starting a New Thread?...Look Here FirstAboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count. Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread.If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events, or important information from other sitesplease post one or two paragraphs, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item, as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.


So you were outraged by gun owners having their information posted? Then you deem it ok if the other side does it in return?
Either you act and live up to the standards you set or your a hypocrite.

Turnabout in this instances is not fair play, you basically tossed your convictions aside and lowered yourself to their level.
Congratulations to the guy who sunk down to their level, now you're just like them.
Anything driven by your anger and vengeance is wrong no matter how you decide to explain it away. It only leads to further negative reactions.

Is this how you gun owners want to run this debate? Tit for tat? Or do you want to show the world your mature enough to own those guns and live to a higher standard?

So far you only prove to me gun owners are whiny babies who need their guns taken away. God forbid we make them too angry and they go on a vengeance spree with their guns...
edit on 28-12-2012 by TheCanuckian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ABNARTY
How did the original article in the Journal News ever make it out in the first place? Whomever gave the OK to go ahead with this had to have envisioned some sort of response. Where was their responsibility to their employees? Perhaps their zealousness blinded them to the reality outside their door.

Part of me says you reap what you sew (sow, ???) and let it be. Part of me is concerned with the escalation because any government responses will not be sane.


What they were trying to do was prove how vengeful gun owners are and how defensive they will become when you attack their ideals. They are trying to prove that gun owners have a lower then average IQ and resort to vengeance actions when attacked. They are trying to prove that gun owners are violent sociopaths with idealistic versions of the world we should all be scared of.

So far they are proving it right too based on this reaction.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCanuckian

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
You knew it was coming:

SOURCE

If you're a publisher, and you are going to be irresponsible for the sake of your politics, then you risk being held to your own standards.
 

edit on Thu Dec 27 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: Starting a New Thread?...Look Here FirstAboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count. Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread.If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events, or important information from other sitesplease post one or two paragraphs, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item, as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.


So you were outraged by gun owners having their information posted? Then you deem it ok if the other side does it in return?
Either you act and live up to the standards you set or your a hypocrite.

Turnabout in this instances is not fair play, you basically tossed your convictions aside and lowered yourself to their level.
Congratulations to the guy who sunk down to their level, now you're just like them.
Anything driven by your anger and vengeance is wrong no matter how you decide to explain it away. It only leads to further negative reactions.

Is this how you gun owners want to run this debate? Tit for tat? Or do you want to show the world your mature enough to own those guns and live to a higher standard?

So far you only prove to me gun owners are whiny babies who need their guns taken away. God forbid we make them too angry and they go on a vengeance spree with their guns...
edit on 28-12-2012 by TheCanuckian because: (no reason given)


Basically you just want to come on this thread and launch a personal attack against me because I posted this information? Because you discern (correctly) that I am pro-second amendment? Where in my post do I even suggest that I am "outraged"? Read the OP again and tell me where the outrage is...

All I said is that if these people are going to publish names of gun owners, then they should expect to be held to the same standard. Someone held them to that standard, didn't they? Are YOU outraged that they did?

No one here is angry except you. I suggest anger management counseling.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Ok bear with me because I just don't understand the original outrage.

So this newspaper published a list of gun owners and pinpointed their houses on a map. What's wrong with that? Guns are to protect you against bad people. Now the bad people have a map to know whose houses are off limits to them. They'd be stupid to go anywhere near those houses.

The people who should be outraged are the people whose houses are NOT on the gun owner database, for they are now sitting ducks.

My partner won't let me put a "Protected by Smith & Wesson" sign outside of my house due to liability, blah blah blah. But I'd love to be listed on that newspaper database of gun owners. So I don't see the editors as having done a bad thing, at least not for gun owners.

Oh and regarding women who are now afraid of crazy, psycho, violent ex's because of this? They are going to find you no matter what. They don't need a newspaper database to help them. Trust me, unfortunately I know.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
How easily we are played.

They simply nudge a media outlet into an ill advised publication and sit back and watch the fall out. This release of gun owners info provokes at tit for tat and before you know it people are asking the government to restrict 'freedom of information'.

This isn't just about guns it's another salvo in the information war.

How easily we are led.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCanuckian

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
You knew it was coming:

SOURCE

If you're a publisher, and you are going to be irresponsible for the sake of your politics, then you risk being held to your own standards.
 

edit on Thu Dec 27 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: Starting a New Thread?...Look Here FirstAboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count. Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread.If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events, or important information from other sitesplease post one or two paragraphs, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item, as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.


So you were outraged by gun owners having their information posted? Then you deem it ok if the other side does it in return?
Either you act and live up to the standards you set or your a hypocrite.

Turnabout in this instances is not fair play, you basically tossed your convictions aside and lowered yourself to their level.
Congratulations to the guy who sunk down to their level, now you're just like them.
Anything driven by your anger and vengeance is wrong no matter how you decide to explain it away. It only leads to further negative reactions.

Is this how you gun owners want to run this debate? Tit for tat? Or do you want to show the world your mature enough to own those guns and live to a higher standard?

So far you only prove to me gun owners are whiny babies who need their guns taken away. God forbid we make them too angry and they go on a vengeance spree with their guns...
edit on 28-12-2012 by TheCanuckian because: (no reason given)


Straight from the mouth of the liberal agenda. Throw a jab and run away, then get ticked off if the one you hit actually hits back. I'm so sick of this "drive by" lie and attack attitude, usually from the left. If you decide to hit me, I will hit you back and if you decide to "out" a bunch of people by publishing their names and addresses with an attitude of "hey...here it is", then expect the same.

Some people in this country are sick and tired of being punched by cowards who then run away like children. I'm sick and tired of it and I'm also tired of logical, passive responses. So continue the liberal boxing match and stop whining and crying when you get hit back.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
The funny thing is this same bunch of idiots that singled out these law abiding citizens should also be published under the fact that they live in a "GUN FREE HOME" as now the criminals they, liberals, love so much can now single out these idiots in the privacy of their own homes so the murdering/rapist/stealing liberal/criminals can easily break into said homes with little to no threat of being harmed by said people who own firearms and do their liberal/criminal thing.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Very good, perhaps the next liberal anti-gun newspaper will think twice before doing something like that. You play with fire, don't cry when you get burned.

To the moral super squad on here who says you should turn the other cheek, evil wins when good men do nothing. They posted that information which can endanger the individuals on that list, so turnabout is fair play. I laughed when I read the take them to court post, what the # is that going to do, the list is already out - and do you know how long litigation takes?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But I know, I know - the left have the monopoly on everything that is good and right in this world and the rest of us should nod our heads and do what they tell us to do.
edit on 28-12-2012 by MidnightTide because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
The issue some of you aren't seeing, now that the paper has done this, those homes are a target for witting and patient thieves. Unless the homeowners have their firearms in a 2000# steel safe bolted to the floor, they can be stolen when they aren't home. I can guarantee many of those homes are being watched right now so thieves can figure out the homeowners patterns. The last thing you want to do is advertise what you have, no "Security by Smith&Wesson". The last thing you want them to see is a flash before the brain shuts down. Well, maybe a sign that says "Security by Pit Bull with AIDS"



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sconner755

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Mixed feelings about this. One part of me says good...they really deserved it. But perhaps the wiser, saner part says that stooping to the same level and doing the same to them just seems wrong. Where would this end?

Maybe the ACLU or someone like that could take them to court for this violation and make their lives miserable. Then again, Gannett (or whoever it was ultimately responsible for publishing this information) could probably fight for decades in court and not even feel the pinch.


Take them to court for what violation?

It's not illegal to publish names and addresses.

There are arguments to be made for the right to privacy, FOIA or no FOIA....Patriot Act or no Patriot Act. You don't need a "violation." All you need is a good legal team.

There are probably hundreds of thousands of abuses of these acts everywhere...from cops to internet trolls who work at banks and have access to information to stalkers who file FOIA requests for the sole purpose of stalking people...and I for one believe this is one too.

edit on 12/28/2012 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I hope the criminals check BOTH lists...id would venture a bet that least some of those magazine workers have a piece stashed away.....the editor may be getting it from both ends.......



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Something that got left out besides safety and robbery probabilities is the social repercussions. maybe some of the passive feedback. Maybe you don't want to freak out your neighbors. Some people have an unnatural fear of guns. I have lived in open carry states and never exercised that right because it freaks some people out. Or maybe you don't want to start getting harrasin angry letters phone calls and emails from antigun nuts or people that think it's cool to be on he antigun bandwagon since that's the way the media deemed to spin it.

YES what the paper did was legal. But as someone pointed out still irresponsible. It was an invasion of the privacy we all hold so dear and for no reason. What good reason could they have to publish that information. While it is freely available most people are too lazy and unmotivated to requisition it unless they had true motive and purpose.

As far as sinking to "that level", and the innocence of staff who worked there, I agree. However I doubt anything serious will result to the staff except unhappiness and anger directed at their superiors which may think twice before initiating selfish irresponsible actions in the future.

In a way this gun control issue has become a war and wars are not fought passively. The actions of the paper represent the fact that we have lost our sense of social responsibility. Anyone who doubt this statement is encouraged to turn on an old show that was originally issued in black and white and observe the moral and social vista.
edit on 28-12-2012 by Nanu13 because: Posting from phone. Forgive some of the errors



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Doesn't matter if they know where I live, they still have to come through the door.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
what an utter FOOL that would write an article and let all the criminals in america know what houses that have guns so they can avoid them and rob the unarmed people.

kudos to this blogger.

I agree, but just because they don't have a permit or a registered gun does not mean they don't own one. Like here in Indiana we don't even have to register a firearm we buy off another person we can just keep it in our house and not have to worry about anything. Only need a permit to carry a firearm in public, other than that you have to be a certain age.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   
classic case of the golden rule : do onto others as you would have them do onto you.
Turn about is fair play. And an eye for an eye etc etc

If the newspaper thought they could drum up some business by making it easier for some average Americans to get harassed about there rights, lets see how they feel with there tires slashed.

And more importantly I hope this isnt just about escalating so much it is about deterrence - you know like what the whole justice system thing is supposed to be about?



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by TheCanuckian
 


pacifism has not worked. It was always a real threat that made things happen.

Pacifists offered an alternative that power usually took but only because the pacifist solution was backed up by a possibly worse scenario or tried to avoid it.

if Gandhi failed, India would have plunged into war for independence. If Martin Luther king and the others had failed with civil rights, the US would have plunged into a race war, ect.

Seeing the alternative the power usually chooses a nicer alternative that has better press and results for everyone.

You think there weren't pacifists for every other revolution of independence, or social struggle? you really think that is something new or special? When war or violence broke out it was because the power did not take the alternative.

Pacifism would do little here since there is not strength to back it up. You can only negotiate from a position of power. It is not the end all be all to problem solving. In this case, if we sit on our hands, we will lose yet even MORE of our rights, as per the trend this past decade. Too much too quick. Nothing is absolute, not even pacifism.

Sometimes and with some people, you NEED to push back.

edit on 29-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
46
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join