NY newspaper that outed gun owners hires armed guards

page: 3
41
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
This hypocrisy is the norm, not the exception.

How many of the anti-gun celebrities and politicians have armed body guards?




posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   
S+F for you op
I was wondering what was going to come out of them posting that info.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Computron
 


Ironic and laughable to be sure. Poses some interesting questions in my mind however; where were the names and addresses of gun owners so readily available that they could be found and published in the first place? Perhaps New Jersey has gun laws that require this type public access and release of information.
It is disturbing that a segment of our population can foster such views and feel entitled to openly publish this information. (Recklessly in my opinion) It is more disturbing still that they somehow had access to this information to publish it in the first place! IDK, Thoughts? Am I missing something?



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by FmrBBJarhead
 


You're not missing a thing, true it maybe public information, but really, who recreationally looks up this type of info, unless you have an agenda behind it? Though what you are seeing is hypocrisy at its FINEST.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:56 AM
link   
imagine a world without newspapers/tv shows... ahhhhh bliss.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


Always thought it was a good idea not to make people with guns angry.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Wasn't the whole point of them posting the names and home addresses of gun owners that guns in the hands of private individuals is not a good thing? Therefore hiring professionals who are armed wouldn't be the same thing at all. Having gotten threats from "law abiding" gun owners also


so when these professionals go home they aren't now regular people or private individuals? also, who is to say some of those people aren't professionals? o wait, i am just feeding the troll



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   
I believe that the newspaper received mail with a white powdery substance in it. It turned out to be harmless, but it was an obvious message, and may have been considered a threat. I too am disgusted that they thought it was a good idea to publish what they did, but the employees, are just following higher orders and I hope that they are not harmed in any way for this. I also hope that they got enough "message" from the public, that an example is set to the government and the media, for what NOT to do.
edit on 4-1-2013 by zayonara because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by zayonara
 





I believe that the newspaper received mail with a white powdery substance in it. It turned out to be harmless, but it was an obvious message, and may have been considered a threat.


They realized that they made a mistake and hired people with guns to protect them from other people with guns who did nothing illegal or unethical in any way, shape or form. These people they exposed for being responsible by obtaining a permit for their legal guns for protection might not want to have their names and home addresses to be printed in a news paper (I know that sounds weird), but they may have very good reasons for that.

The local Police department said that they had no problems other than negative response from their readers. So they come up with a story of white substance BS. I personally think they made up the white substance story because people are laughing at them.



I too am disgusted that they thought it was a good idea to publish what they did, but the employees, are just following higher orders and I hope that they are not harmed in any way for this.


I also hope no one gets harmed. The reporter should have attempted to contact these people because in NY you need a permit just to have a gun in the house, and some may be hiding from somebody who wants to harm them in another state somewhere. You don't need to have your address registered to your name but must have a gun registered if you want it to be legal. And now anybody anywhere has a list they can browse anonymously.

This reporter should had included his own name and address or refuse to run the story because it's unethical and potentially put some people in danger.

Frequently asked questions


The story says the reporter who wrote it has a pistol permit; is he on the map?

No. He is not licensed to carry his gun by Westchester or Rockland counties, the only counties covered on the map.

edit on 4-1-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
they tried to exploit peoples freedoms for revenue - whatever happens to them is probably warranted
edit on 4-1-2013 by circuitsports because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by iwilliam
Wait... so they "outed" gun owners (presumably because they're anti-gun and were trying to make a point) and then when they get negative feedback, and worry that they might not be safe, they suddenly want guns around them, for their own protection?

If these assumptions are true, these people are some of the worst kind of hypocrites.


actually, it's worse ... IF you can imagine such a thing.

they outed "permit holders" NOT gun owners.

imagine your daughter, in an abusive relationship, has acquired a permit (but no gun yet) ... would you think her life might be in extreme danger ??

i still hope somone sues the life right out of this rag.

on the flipside ...



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by FmrBBJarhead
reply to post by Computron
 


Ironic and laughable to be sure. Poses some interesting questions in my mind however; where were the names and addresses of gun owners so readily available that they could be found and published in the first place? Perhaps New Jersey has gun laws that require this type public access and release of information.
It is disturbing that a segment of our population can foster such views and feel entitled to openly publish this information. (Recklessly in my opinion) It is more disturbing still that they somehow had access to this information to publish it in the first place! IDK, Thoughts? Am I missing something?

the newspaper journalist had to file a formal FOIA request to gain the information as it is not in the "public" realm for anyone to simply search.

once the non-published info was received, the paper then published it without the consent of anyone they were jeopardizing in an effort to demonize all permit holders.

New Jersey has many members of the criminal element that will retain this information like some cling to a bible ... until the info changes (ppl move), they are all suffering a hightened risk at the sole discretion of an unscrupulous publisher.

and, aside from those published, what about everyone else ?
was it fair to announce to the world that they are UN-armed and possibly lacking home defenses ?



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Yeah, here's a tip you probably shouldn't have to give to a newspaper:

Unless a government wants you dead, any white, powdery, substance you get in the mail is more likely to be flour than anthrax. Anthrax just isn't that easy to come by.

Still, maybe the newspaper should publish the names and addresses of people that have access to white, powdery substances.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JarheadFidelis
I read this yesterday on an internet news site. Talk about hypocrisy! Demonizing gun owners and treating them as criminals, yet hiring armed security when your address is posted? I guess they didnt like having to walk in the gun owners shoes. Imagine that.


I agree its hypocrisy and that doesn't very journalistic what the NY newspaper tried to and it feels as if that writer of that blog has a agenda from the government since after all arent all news outlets a state government run?



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
So their names and addresses are a matter of public record due to gun registration and they are pissed that a newspaper published them? Isn't that like getting pissed off at the phone book? They should be thanking the paper for pointing out their ignorance and belief in security through obscurity- which is no security at all.

If these records weren't public they'd have some basis for their complaints.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by okachobi
So their names and addresses are a matter of public record due to gun registration and they are pissed that a newspaper published them? Isn't that like getting pissed off at the phone book? They should be thanking the paper for pointing out their ignorance and belief in security through obscurity- which is no security at all.

If these records weren't public they'd have some basis for their complaints.


It's not like getting pissed at the phone book. If your phone number is listed in the phone book that means you did not request a unlisted number. In other words when you activated you phone service you told them that you don't mind to be listed. And even if this is the case, how would you like a newspaper publishing it for the the whole world to see?

These records are only public through FOIA. A little different than having a sign on your house that you have a gun permit..



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Payback is a bitch aint it?
www.newrochelletalk.com...



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Another robbery in the area where the guns, safes, and permits were taken!

westchester.news12.com...



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I would like to see if any legal action can be taken against the paper, even more so if your home is broken into.

As for the security firm I would have told them to pound sand. I agree with the poster saying we should find the firm and petition them to withdrawl the security.

Screw this paper, I hope they have to shut their doors for good.

Raist



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by JarheadFidelis
reply to post by alfa1
 


Maybe its another way for them to call attention to gun owners and demonize them more.



At any rate it shows in micro why the 2nd amendment is right behind the 1st. Maybe they can learn from thier own actions here.





new topics
top topics
 
41
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join