Slashdot Mirror
Newspaper That Published Gun-Owners List Hires Armed Guards
inode_buddha writes "Not long ago we ran a story about how a NY newspaper published lists of gun owners. Now, it seems the same newspaper has hired armed guards in response to unspecified threats to the editor, amid 'large volumes of negative response.' From the article: 'The editor, Caryn McBride, told police the newspaper hired a private security company whose "employees are armed and will be on site during business hours," the report said. The guards are protecting the newspaper's staff and Rockland County offices in West Nyack, New York.'"
... is that what irony looks like?
I hope the paper dutifully publishes the names of the armed guards they hired.
So what they're saying is the only way they can stop bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. Gee where have I heard that recently....
Wouldn't want their employees to feel threatened by the angry gun-owning proletarians they chastise and demean on a daily basis.
So, basically, you should only get armed protection if you're a politician or a sleazeball newspaper editor. What a great strategy to disarm your opposition so you can oppress with no fear of retribution!
While I'm in favor of banning guns, I'm not in favor of violating the privacy of thousands of people. What this paper did was, while still legal, incredibly unethical. It was a vindictive attack on gun owners to try to inspire fear in the public.
They essentially threw the first punch... unwisely, I'm thinking. Still, this smacks of publicity stunt rather than any actual fear. Besides, all they've done is hire initial targets if somebody comes gunning for them. What a mess. Welcome to the USA.
Personally, I would be upset with both the Newspaper and the State. The only reason the State knows legally that you have a gun is by registering, which is frankly unconstitutional in itself. The State acted irresponsibly with the information releasing it to a Public source. I hope they get sued.
The Newspaper on the other hand should know better. Publishing this was strictly for propaganda purposes to further the current massive push to disarm Americans. I won't tell you if I own guns or how many, but will say this. Any American not concerned with the push for gun bans should be extremely alarmed. Read some fucking history books and notice what happens when tyrants in control have nothing to fear from the peasants. Yeah, it always works out so well, which is why the article is in the US Constitution.
Sue them both, and boycott the Newspaper to put them out of business! I'm sick of propaganda agencies supported by the Government. And bet your ass they got a check from the Government for running that article.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
"If everybody just didn't have any guns, crime wouldn't be nearly as bad... except us, we need them!"
"If everybody just used public transportation, these roads wouldn't be nearly as crowded. Except me, of course. I need my car!"
Striking similarity, eh?
So, will the newspaper be posting the home addresses of their armed guards? Or the ir posts while on duty?
Or ... perhaps if the average IQ of weapons owners didnt match the gauge they are shooting
Yeah. Like Joe Biden. Yes, he's a gun owner. Stupid ass that HE is.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
After a no-name newspaper gets national attention they decide that it would be a good idea to continue the story that got them the attention in the first place. If there were actually credible threats, then the police would be doing this.
Irony at its finest. It always baffles me that those in favor of banning guns are the very ones that use them. Of course its perfectly alright to have people with guns protecting them, yet it is entirely unacceptable for others to use them to protect themselves and their family.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Because clearly, it's the magazine's fault that 20 children were murdered by a depraved psycho. Limiting magazines to 10 rounds will fix everything, because dropping one clip and loading another takes so much time!
Congratulations, you've just proven to the whole internet that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
Why on earth would the state make the list of registered gun owners public?
Woo hoo. I am sure that this is what the founders thought of when they wrote and voted on the second amendment.
You have the right to own weapons with the ability to kill dozens(tens of dozens) of people in a matter of seconds, and if that ability is exposed to your neighbors you should threaten to use those weapons against people who pose you no threat to make them quite.
'The editor, Caryn McBride, told police the newspaper hired a private security company whose "employees are armed and will be on site during business hours," the report said.
So the newspaper is against guns and publishes a list of gun owners... and then hires a bunch of folks armed with, yes, guns. When push comes to shove, the reality is clear. Guns are effective as a defense measure. Criminals do not care about laws so outlawing guns will not take the guns from the criminals. This mean that all gun laws are for the explicit purpose of making law abiding citizens defenseless against criminals.
Guns can be used to make committing crimes easier and to make defense against crimes easier. Seems like a null proposition and that all guns should be abolished. Right? Well, not quite so fast there. Guns equalize the situation. Without a gun, crimes and defense against crimes depends purely on physical characteristics of the aggressor and the intended victim. A large and fit criminal can pretty much do whatever they want. Everyone else gets to suffer. Guns change this equation. Anyone who can shoot can defend themselves against aggression as long as they can aim and pull a trigger. This rebalances the equation in favor of having guns around for self defense.
I do not even personally own a gun (kids in the house and such) and yet I feel safer knowing that people around me could be carrying guns. Criminals always perform their crimes when the police are not present.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
So if you are a victim of crime, just be ready to lie down
and take your victim status like a big boy or girl, because since
you don't have a gun you won't have any other choice.
...until I need to be protected. Then they're good again, but only for me. No one else should have guns, except when I say so.
But think about this a step further. Presumably, the people who are doing all of the threatening (clearly highly intimidating threats otherwise guards wouldn't be called in) are supposed to be the 'good guys' gun carriers, not the bad guy criminals who aren't supposed to have guns in the first place. This whole thing says a lot about the perceived power a gun holder has over someone without. Good guy or bad, own a gun and you start to feel power enough to turn into a thug.
And aren't the thugs what the good guy gun owners want to defend against?
Looks like they learned what Reagan meant by peace through superior firepower, or whoever said that.
Its a good thing the gun owners are all for the 1st Amendment, because in the works of the 2nd Amendment advocates: "There can be no 1st Amendment without the 2nd Amendment.". Otherwise they would be using their 2nd Amendment rights to subvert the first. Oh Wait.
The founding fathers did not in any way think of the internet, therefore we shouldn't have a right to free expression on the internet. The founding fathers didn't have a clue about Mormonism, therefore Mormons shouldn't have a right to practice their religion. Etc.
It is a misconception that the second amendment was written to allow for hunting or even just private home defense. Instead the second amendment was written to allow private citizens to own the same weapons that the government had access to, therefore assuring that if the republic would turn to tyranny the citizens could stage an armed revolt and change the government.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Still waiting for a liberal media... You only think it's liberal because it's such a poor representation of conservative talking points.
Why would the state make a list of the homes that are not defended by firearms public?
Pissing off gun owners is just asking for a Darwin Award ;-)
Table-ized A.I.
What people seem to be missing is that there is a difference between having guards, who are trained, licensed, certified, bonded, etc, who carry guns only while on a job vs who-knows-which random, semi-literate, entirely untrained, barely certified yahoo packing guns who knows where. The "back ground" checks for random citizens buying guns are a joke. This is why we have one tragedy after another with schools, offices, etc becoming shooting ranges. And before you try to claim that putting guns in the schools will solve the problem, please note that Columbine *had* armed guards.
The problem with letting random citizens own guns is that most people are too careless, too random, too emotional to be predictable and safe. Guns make it far to easy for one person to kill lots and lots of other people in the heat of a moment. In addition, armed guards are of limited use when someone has decided to target a facility. The attacker can choose the time and place of the attack and prepare for the response. The people being attacked don't know when or if an attack is going to come and there is no way to be prepared at all times. That is why the armed guard at Columbine was unable to prevent the attackers at the school.
Bottom line, guns kill 30,000+ people every year. Banning guns will not completely eliminate their presence, but it will severely curtail it. And with fewer guns there will be fewer deaths. Trying to claim that more guns is the answer is kind of like trying to put out a fire by pouring more gasoline on it. Trying to claim that we should allow guns because we cannot completely eliminate them is specious reasoning.
Also note that many of the people who advocate guns like to claim that this is their way of ensuring that they can fight back against the government. So these people are harboring fantasies of hiding in the bushes fighting their own government! Hardly what I could call a patriotic attitude...
Only people who have a job that requires guns should have guns. And people who apply for those jobs need to be run through very through, and ongoing, vetting to ensure that they will use them in a responsible manner.
http://econ-ecoff.blogspot.com/2012/12/arm-schools-honey-boom-boom.html
Certainly some of the employees of the newspaper, their relatives, and friends own registered firearms. I wonder if the paper removed any of those people from the list before they published it?
Better known as 318230.
well, at least the newspaper can now update their map and add one more location where people with guns can be found.
Disclaimer: I'm a card carrying NRA member, and I'm also a card carrying ACLU member.
Right now, no matter if one stressing the 1st amendment or the 2nd amendment, or both, it is already way too late.
The so-called "Freedom of Speech" is but a damn charade - for it's the so-called "freedom" allowed by tptb.
Same thing as the "Right to bear arms" --- you think with your pissy little semi-automatic assault rifles you can fight the army?
America is no longer the land of the free - although there are still a lot of very brave people living there.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Would these armed guards have been on the paper's list? If so, how did that make THEM feel? I'd say the paper is bringing the fox in to the hen house.
http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/keep-up-the-heat-and-look-whos-got-the-home-address-of-cyndee-royle-editor-of-the-journal-news/
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
This sig intentionally left blank.
Huh, By definition, the opposite of conservative is liberal. Your statement shows your stupidity. .
So it turns out that a not insignificant number of the 'good' gun owners turn out to be people who should be let nowhere near a gun.
These idiots post a "steal me" list of people with guns so now criminals have a shopping list and now they hire armed guards to protect them because gun owners are angry? To quote Ripley, "did IQs drop sharply while I was away""
Isn't it funny how when you really need a gun it is wonderful to have one handy? It is sort of like the young female with a restraining order in hand trying to stop a deranged ex with a piece of paper. Sometimes a gun is like sex or a tennis racket. When you need one not much else will do.
Want to discourage gun ownership? Outsource manufacturing to China, like every fucking thing else in the United Brothels of America; when they don't fail to fire, they'll fire in reverse.
I'm quite sick of reading and otherwise hearing about journalists publishing hit pieces and other types of pointed articles on products and individuals and businesses that lack the proper levels of thought out scenarios or if-then's.
Nobody wishes harm to anyone of course but quite literally there are consequences to some speech and I would think a newspaper would be bright enough to know this.
The potential for setting up owners for thefts and break in's should have been thought provoking enough to make a writer and an editor think twice.
The potential for setting up owners for thefts and break in's should have been thought provoking enough to make a writer and an editor think twice.
Hmm...
should have been thought provoking enough to make a writer and an editor think twice.
That's a little bit better...
make a writer and an editor think
Ah! Well, there's your problem.
Gun control advocates love to indicate the 'logic' that less guns correlates to less homicides. But Logic, also requires that negation hold true. More guns = more homicides... right? However when gun sales have surged in the last 10 years, increasing nearly 40% in the last 10 years, homicides, especially gun related homicides, are down. Funny how "a clear correlation between guns and homicides" breaks down when applying basic statistics. .0003% of guns used in homicides... clearly a problem with guns, if and only if you lust after leaving people defenseless and powerless. Of course if less gun = less homicides then more guns = more homicides which... well isn't true.
Wait it isn't linear... wait there are more regressors... wait there are more excuses and attempts to over-fit a model... Did you know that the price of gasoline correlates to the number of homicides committed between the hours of 9 PM CST and 11:41 PM CST. Of course the question is how strong the correlation is. Good lore you would be surprised what you can make correlate to something.
The USA doesn't have a gun problem, it has a gang violence problem. You take out gang related homicides and guess what, were are nearly identical to Canada, England, France, Iceland, Norway, Spain, Germany, and the rest of the top 30 peaceful nations per 100,000. The problem is inner city poverty, broken homes, and poor childhood development which is the American cocktail for gangs.
Keep your head in the sand and keep ignoring the gang violence problem. Yeah ban the last line of defense citizens have against those lawless gangs...
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
For some reason i saw this coming. Why shouldnt there be as many guns as people? (including the blind, the babies and children, etc in american non-police/military capacity) because the sheer numbers indicate that some decent slice of that pie are going to be mentally ill, religiously deranged, racist/nationalist/political bigots to a degree that guarantees threats to life in many cases and action in others. the right to own a weapon is in the constitution, yes. armed militias for defense against an oppressive government. these were in the days where muskets were the forefront of technology and were actually quite similar to technology that was quite old. but did they imagine an AK47 for defense? i hope not. because an AH64 apache vs your AK = you lose. even with every civilian armed with 10 assault rifles vs the tens of thousands of modern war machines with trained and skilled operators? still lose.
That's right kids, they are just following the gutless NRA nanny state suggestion - the one where the government is supposed to protect children by hiring a lot of armed guards.
Doing the right thing and helping to control military quality guns requires more courage than the NRA has. Asking for the government to get a lot bigger and protect all the children in a nanny state solution is a cowardly way to avoid responsibility.
Did they check to see if any of these armed guards were folks they'd outed with their map of addresses? Don't want any of the people you victimized being your protector...
This sig intentionally left blank.
I thought gun owners were proud of what they are, not poor fraidy-cats who need to threaten those who let people know about them.
because dropping one clip and loading another takes so much time!
Indeed. For anyone that thinks that loading a magazine is some major roadblock, take a look at the video I'm linking below. It's of Max Michel drawing his gun from a holster and firing 18 rounds - reloading twice (every 6 rounds on 3 targets) all in under 5 seconds. Granted, he's a grand-master ranked pistol shooter, but even the most ham-fisted idiot won't take more than 3-4 seconds to perform a mag change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QhmSg3UjEU
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
And the tolerant left shows itself once again. One of the reasons the USA is a great country is because we allow close minded people like you to have a voice. Gun owners who have legally obtained their firearms are far less likely to break the law.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
But perhaps prudent in the short term.
This is illustrates the necessity of the right to keep and bear arms.
Because the control laws will not apply to corporate America , they will ensure that no citizen has a gun
and when a corporation decides that lawsuits liens and foreclosures is to expensive
they will resort to using guns to force ones compliance.
"do as I say, not as I do"?
This is the same mindset as terrorists. They want to enforce their will by violence and intimidation. Gun owners think this will also work for them: if I flash my sidearm, then people will have to take me very seriously. Just knowing that they have a gun somewhere means this power fantasy is within reach. "I can go get my gun and show them who's really in charge." It's the dark twisted dirty little secret of the gun worshipers.
In a free society people shouldn't fear for their lives for exercising free speech. In the US we look down on places in the world where extremists use violence to silence their opponents. This is a stark reminder that this happens in the US as well. Another example is the violence, including assassination, against abortion providers. It can and does happen here.
All the comments about the "irony" of guns needed to protect people at the newspaper are tacitly giving approval for the use of gun violence for intimidation. Intimidation is the credible threat of violence, even if it does not happen. Given recent events, and the history of gun violence in the US, the threats are credible. Those associated with the newspaper, even those who have nothing to do with the article, are rightly in fear for their safety.
Do think that's a good thing? Do you want to live in a society where the price of free speech is the threat of violence? Is our ever expanding gun culture worth this price? Remember that if I asked this in some places I would be getting threatening phone calls and might end up with someone shooting at my house. Guns don't insure freedom by any stretch of the imagination.
Why is Snark Required?
Sounds ironic, but I don't think the newspaper gets the real problem. The biggest complaint about registration is, what happens when criminals get a hold of the list? They can't use a weapon they bought, so they use a stolen one that can't be traced back to them. By publishing this list they have created a shopping list, and they wonder why people would be angry? Gun control should be making sure that only safe, sane, and law abiding people have access to guns.
"Force, my friends, is violence: the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived. Naked force has resolved more conflicts throughout history than any other factor. The contrary opinion, that violence never solves anything, is wishful thinking at its worst. The people who forget that always pay, and they pay with their lives."
There is a difference between something being "public information" but requiring specific action to discover and a 3rd party collecting that information and publicly publishing it.
I think that the newspaper did that in an attempt to intimidate those people and anyone thinking of getting a similar permit.
Which is where the "irony" part comes in.
Now the newspaper people are the ones intimidated.
Now the newspaper people have turned to OTHER armed people (not the government or police force) for protection from the people they attempted to intimidate in the first place.
It's still stupid on both sides.
... trained, licensed, regulated guys with guns, who can only carry on duty, don't take their firearm home, etc ...
Armed security guards generally have personal firearms at home.
I've had such training and state certification, specifically in the very liberal anti-gun state of California. No one in my class was sent there by an employer. Everyone was there on their own time with their own personal firearms. Employers expect you to have the certification before you apply for the job.
scum like Squiddie and the rest of the sickening gun wackos
I don't actually own any firearms. Just for the record here.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The second amendment does not give everyone and anyone who is a US citizen the right to bear arms you fucking morons. A bunch of fucktards that took a weekend course on gun safety does not constitute a well regulated militia. A well regulated militia, at the time of the founding fathers was regulated by congress and received regular training, more akin to a reserve.
First off, I wouldn't say they were *significantly* more innocent. They attempted intimidation first. They are more innocent than the people threatening them with deadly weapons but that it for that part.
Secondly, they did not just post the names of the people who threatened them. They also posted the names of innocent people who had exercised their 2nd Amendment rights and who have NOT threatened them. They are less innocent than those people.
So the final question should be whether 50%+ of the people they "outed" have threatened them or not. I'm going to guess not. But that's just based upon the people I know who own guns.
DId mommy not hug you? Easy there, killer...
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Honestly I think you're being quite overzealous. Seriously, calm down and think with a straight mind.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
---gun owners, in at least one study, were 4 times more likely to be injured by a gun than non-gun owners. And gun owners with an opportunity to defend themselves with their weapons were over 5 times more likely to be injured or killed by a gun than non-gun owners.
You are right not to have a gun in the house, when you have children. In addition to the accidents that can occur, it's sobering to consider that nearly half of teen suicides are committed with guns. Yes, some of those suicidal kids will find another way, but I can't help thinking that making suicide harder to accomplish at least reduces the impulsive acts, and that could lead to finding treatment.
The statistics about domestic abuse and guns are even more depressing.
We need an "incorrect information" mod for this post please.
I'd be happy with a "disinformation" mod.
Sent from my ENIAC
Even the biggest idiot will take time this is true.
So just how many seconds will it take for someone armed to show up and stop the shooter in the gun free zone?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Probably not the 4chan anonymous, another one
A group of anonymous hackers made a map specifically identifying all the subcribers to that newspaper. Sauce for the gander
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/01/group-claims-hacked-subscriber-database-of-ny-newspaper-which-published-gun-permit-map/
Go fuck yourself slashtrollshit and get the fuck out of my gun loving country yourself. PUSSY ASS PIECE OF SHIT!
In your link that was non-Japanese Americans imprisoning Japanese Americans during a war with Japan.
I doubt the military's commitment to imprisoning people who look exactly like they do who are their friends and family. The guys in military come from the same small towns that the people with the guns come from.
...there's often good reason, hiding.
I don't have any problem with introspection and I carry every day. The NRA is no more representative of "Gun Owners" than Microsoft is representative of "Software Engineers." Both businesses have quite a number of them, and considerable money, but their organizational opinions don't represent all of us. For more on this, read: slashdot.org
If you can overcome that broad brush generalization, then the problem is this:
Every time there is a tragedy involving guns their is an outcry from the far left that "now is the moment to strike" and they push for legislation they have been dreaming of for decades to see what they can get through. Political war mongers take the prize for this tactic when using unrest in the world to justify military spending. Now is little different, all us folk in the States feel bad about those poor kids, and the people on the far left want the Clinton era assault weapons ban back even though we had it, and the crime stats before, during and after look absolutely flat. They are like the modern Prohibition Party, they simply refuse to learn from very obvious history lessons: http://www.prohibition.org/
For a much more modern lesson on it have a look at London, it's got crime rates like New York but stronger anit-gun laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London. In particular, look at the knife-enabled crime rates. 16.8 per 10k people? Taking the guns away causes the criminals to change weapons, it doesn't fix crime. The things that drive criminals to misbehave do not evaporate in the absence of optimal tools. As for the argument that it changes the nature of crime for the better, people too old to defend themselves with knives or martial arts can explain the defensive advantage of the "Great Equalizer" better than I. Ask an armed one.
If you want to solve crime, you do so with economics. I'm sorry it's doesn't have the quick-fix magic promised by your politicians, but it's the only thing that works. Of particular note is that violent crime is heaviest in places with sharp economic downturns. The four entries the US gets in the "cities by murder rate" chart are New Orleans, St. Louis, Detroit and Baltimore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate It doesn't take much reading to find out what these cities have in common and it's not gun laws.
So, yes, the NRA is using deceitful diversionary tactics to try to stall useless new laws that will only endanger more citizens. I don't know where this puts them on your moral map. For mine it leaves them somewhere between "useful" and "digusting" in the zone labeled "people I don't want to be anything like." Many large companies are mapped to this zone.
If you want to put a dent in the ugly issues of every-day and exceptional violence:
1. Vote for a Congress that works and make a good overall economy. Hopelessness kills.
2. Be decent people. Demonizing the other side in a political debate creates the illusion of an atmosphere of war that aids unstable people in justifying aberrant behavior.
You are a stranger to me, but given the opportunity I will step into harms way to protect you. Whether you realize it or not, I'm on your side.
P.S. That was introspection.
That's the wrong question.
The correct question is, if The Revolutionary War was fought with M16's, would our Founding Fathers have been okay with civilians owning them?
Or, phrased another way, is there any weapon that our Founding Fathers would have insisted NOT be allowed to civilians and ONLY be kept by the government?
And today Caryn McBride understands the maxim "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
have there been any arrests of the so called perpetrators of such threats to the media? this just sounds like another dishonest media ploy.
...are those that live without arms.
Granted, he's a grand-master ranked pistol shooter, but even the most ham-fisted idiot won't take more than 3-4 seconds to perform a mag change.
I think you are giving the crazy people too much credit. Under ideal conditions, yeah, it ain't that hard. But under stress in conditions that the shooter has never experienced before, seems like there is a reasonable chance of fumbling and even dropping the magazine on the ground.
I think the idea of smaller magazines is a good one - just like I think the idea of smaller soda cups is a good one. It adds friction but does not seriously stop anything. A little bit of friction at the right point can go a long way.
On the other hand, the time when banning the sale of large magazines could add friction is rapidly coming to an end. A few more years, 10 at the most, and anyone will be able to use a 3D printer to manufactuer high capacity magazines in their living room. In 10 years, they'll probably be able to manufacture full-auto weapons too - or at the very least the parts necessary to go from semi-auto to full-auto.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
the gun owners demonstrate why they should not own guns. They lose their cool and react in hate and threats. People who are that uncontrolled can't be trusted to operate a firearm under stress or for the right reason. They should have their guns taken away until the grow up. The paper published what was on public record, so the gun owners try to intimidate the press - threaten death and violence- for publishing something they didn't like. but is readily available. W T F
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
The military usually takes advantage of those larger magazines for suppressive fire. Your goal with suppressive fire isn't to kill your target but rather to keep your targets head down long enough for you to do what you need to do.
Nuh Uh!
how you are able to divine the intentions of people that you have never met and do not know?
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
If you think for an instant that this list will not be carefully inspected by criminals seeking to minimize occupational hazards, you have another thing coming. Thanks to Sandy Hook, homeowners without guns will not likely be able to purchase guns for some time (many stores are sold out due to sudden demand). Therefore, this list will remain accurate for some time to come.
From a security standpoint, this list is really terrible, and is almost worse for non-gun-owners than for gun-owners, at least in terms of immediate personal security.
the gun nuts say everyone should have guns to protect themselves, yet here is a business hiring guns to protect itself from gun nuts... Oh, forget it,they will never see the irony of it....
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
It is always about so many of the citizens being pissed enough to be willing to die in protests or go to jail in such large numbers that the Government is no longer sure of the support of large sections of its police, army, administration etc.
Doing that with assault rifles or unarmed like Gandhi is no different. An individual in both cases has to be willing to die, even if the overall fatalities as a group may be less or more.
How many US Citizens with assault rifles have ever protested against the TSA ? Can you even imagine them doing so ? Its probably better to protest unarmed against Governments. As a rule, the Government can't back down from an armed conflict till it has expended all its resources. Its quicker and cleaner, relatively, for hordes of people to protest, go to jail, get hurt, few even killed to make a sufficient impact.
In the end it is only about Numbers. Off course,
please, then, explain your interpretation of the first phrase of the 2nd amendment, which qualifies the second phrase. That is, are you part of a well regulated militia, and tell us how you are "well regulated"?
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
Gun opponents are quick to say that, like sex offenders, gun owners are a threat to society. One problem: None of those registered gun owners has ever been convicted of a felony. None of them have been proven to be threats to society (or they wouldn't be allowed to own a gun).
The wrong-headedness of this sort of blatant, vigilantist journalism betrays everything real journalism is about - delivering objective news. It's sad when so-called journalists do this, because it paints their entire profession in a bad light (and their news organization)
Somehow, I don't think a government that is quick to persecute an individual because of the lawful choices they make would be one the journalists would ultimately thrive in - yet these "journalists" probably congratulated themselves on how clever they were in doing this to others, simply because they didn't share the same opinions on gun ownership.
Ultimately, they have nothing to fear from lawful gun owners... but those who would do harm to others might be more than a bit interested in their names and addresses, if nothing else, as potential burglary victims. They didn't think about the consequences of their actions when they published this list - though the hoped it would harm, in some nebulous way, gun owners. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they cry foul and hire armed guards. What a sad statement on what sort of people they are (the creators of the map, the editors and publishers who allowed it). They never thought about their co-workers, their families, or even themselves... all to make an ill-conceived political attack on innocent people.
By which exotic extrapolation method did you reach 'the left!' from his or her post?
... the prime example of why gun registration, carry permits, etc, need to NOT be public information ... or just entirely outlawed.
I'm not against making some improvements to gun laws to make sure certain people should NOT have guns. But this action by this utterly stupid newspaper and its utterly stupid editor basically just destroyed the efforts to come to an agreeable improvement. But I will defend their 1st amendment right to be stupid.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Must be a new variant
Every M16 I fired in the military in the early 80's had a 3-position selector for: single-shot / 3-round-burst / full-auto
Note for all you video gamers: there was rarely a use for full-auto for anything but covering fire because recoil from each round makes the muzzle walk-up a bit ... your first round hits the target, if you are good your second hits higher on the target, if you are REALLY good your third round might hit higher on the target, and then you are off the target anyway; full-auto is FUN but its lots of noise and excitement with little extra damage for any man-sized targets.
"Should one aggregate and publish with intent to criminalize law-abiding citizens in the eyes of the public?" You tell us you can read the minds of the publisher? You tell us that you can divine the intent of someone you do not know? Get real. And you create a false equivalency. #1 - the paper published what is a matter of public record. for all we know, they could be doing this to let people know who to go to in case they happen to need the help of a person who owns a gun. Certainly, my interpretation of the paper's motive is just as valid as yours is, and is supported by the same facts, which is to say, none. But the truth here is that a gun owner has a huge responsibility that comes with owning a deadly weapon, and they are obligated to be "above" and to be wiser than than others, just as a black belt is obligated to avoid a fight until he or she is attacked. Gun owners should be harder to provoke, and more level headed, and more observant about other's actions and attitudes. And above all, they should never threaten someone with bodily harm, nor death, nor threaten property. They should never brandish a weapon, unless under real and present threat of attack. And certainly, the gun owners should not be trying to intimidate the press for printing public information which they do not like. And I say this, because I own a gun, and was taught from the day I could pick up a gun - always assume its loaded, do not handle it until you have visually checked it to make sure it is not loaded, do not point it at anyone, unless you are fully prepared to kill them, never put your finger on the trigger until you are prepared to shoot, and be practiced enough that you are certain that you can hit your target the first shot. Which is why I find the ranting for owning any type of rapid fire weapon, an admission that the person is too stupid and untrained to be able to hit the target on the first shot. You want to defend your home? Get a nice 16 gauge pump shotgun. Just aim in the general direction and you are gonna hit something with one shot. And if it happens to be a home invader, the sound of the thing is enough to scare them off. And you won't risk your .223 or .40 caliber ammo going through walls of your house and hitting somebody in the next room, either.
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
"The police are only minutes away when seconds matter" - anon
Rest assured, after you are murdered by a criminal with an illegal weapon, a police officer will arrive to draw a chalk outline around your corpse and gather evidence. Another police officer might eventually arrest your murderer. The police will handle him during the trial, jailers will keep him after he is convicted, a parole officer will be in contact with him after he gets paroled. None of these fine people will be of any service to you; your status as a corpse will remain unchanged. There's nothing wrong with this ... the police are there to capture the guilty and they operate on behalf of the society ... but they are not the personal bodyguards of each American citizen.
The police will help you and possibly save you if they happen to be nearby when you are in danger .... but they cannot be everywhere. The only way for the police to be everywhere, protecting everybody, is for everybody to be a police officer ..... hmmmmm ..... how convenient ..... the founders made sure the 2nd amendment made it clear that each person had the right to carry firearms to protect himself. Wow. Those guys sure were smart!
The Constitution does not GIVE us a right to bear arms. The 2nd amendment does not GIVE us the right to bears arms. Each of us has the God-given rights of a free person to keep and bear arms; a natural right to self-defense and to live free of tyrants. The 2nd amendment only forces the government to face the fact that we each, as individuals, have these rights and that the people did not transfer those rights to the federal government. Our founders made it very clear in their other writings that the 1st ten amendments (the "Bill of Rights") do not grant or create rights ..... they just explicitly make clear that these certain rights which the people already naturally have are very explicitly not taken from the people by the creation of the federal government.
please, then, explain your interpretation of the first phrase of the 2nd amendment, which qualifies the second phrase. That is, are you part of a well regulated militia, and tell us how you are "well regulated"?
All able bodied males 18-45 are in the militia according to US federal law. The militia has two parts, first the active part which includes but is not limited to the National Guard, the second is the inactive part that includes everyone else. Active/inactive refers to whether you are expected to train periodically. "Regulated" in its 1776 context is also referring to being trained so one performs in an efficient manner, it is not referring to be licensed or restricted.
...
Sorry no link, this was discussed in an ROTC class in college where the organization of the US military was being described. Regular, active reserve, inactive reserve, federalized national guard, active militia, inactive militia,
The same regimentation isn't applied to private citizens, so what justification do you have to expose us to a greater risk?
There is no justification, because there is no need for one. The onus is on those desiring to restrict the freedom to own high-capacity magazines to clearly demonstrate that the increase in risk justifies the limitation - same as with any other restriction on personal rights.
By definition, the conservatives in the USA are liberal. And, almost all media is owned by conservatives.
Learn to love Alaska
For all we know, they are responding to a bunch of phone calls and/or internet postings, with no evidence whatsoever that the threats are from people who actually own guns
Interestingly though, they clearly believe that it's perfectly fine for "good people" to use guns to protect themselves (and others) from possibly dangerous people who might be contemplating illegal acts; indeed, they apparently have not ordered the guards to start shooting right away ..... so they clearly believe that the simple act of carrying a gun is adequate to deter many possibly evil or unhinged people from starting anything (something most of the gun owners they "outed" probably also believe). Presumably they will never again write a story about "gun violence" that cites statistics without acknowledging this very important effect (and the fact that it is never included in any of the oft-cited stats) ..... oh, no, never mind .... they're a left-leaning newspaper so of course they will go right ignoring this detail.
These armed guards are a far more powerful editorial than anything that will ever cascade from any of their keyboards, and so typical of the press .... the elite need protection from the commoners and the commoners do not need any protection.
---gun owners, in at least one study, were 4 times more likely to be injured by a gun than non-gun owners. And gun owners with an opportunity to defend themselves with their weapons were over 5 times more likely to be injured or killed by a gun than non-gun owners. You are right not to have a gun in the house, when you have children. In addition to the accidents that can occur, it's sobering to consider that nearly half of teen suicides are committed with guns. Yes, some of those suicidal kids will find another way, but I can't help thinking that making suicide harder to accomplish at least reduces the impulsive acts, and that could lead to finding treatment. The statistics about domestic abuse and guns are even more depressing.
And proper training would eliminate most of these accidents and child suicides. The requirement to go through a hunter's safety class in order to get a hunting license greatly reduced the number of hunting accidents. When I went through the class it was mostly firearms safety and statistics similar to what you offer were brought up. However the solution was to keep firearms securely locked up and/or partially disassembled (ex. remove the bolt from the rifle and lock up the bolt - only need a small box not a large case). We were taught that keeping a loaded firearm laying around for defense actually put us at risk and that keeping the firearm locked up in some manner reduced the risk back to a household without any firearms. Our class was taught by a state game warden and "books" were state publications.
They have endorsed and validated the NRA message .... ha, ha, ha, ha, ha
Personally I oppose putting armed guards everywhere .... but any law-abiding adult ought to be packing. Any active or retired police officer, firefighter, or military person should automatically have a concealed carry permit as long as he/she has no record of criminal activity or mental illness. An armed society is a polite society ..... but a society where the law-abiding are unarmed and the criminals have illegal guns is, well, Chicago ..... or a gun-free school, or a gun-free movie theater on premier night ... or a gun-free airliner cabin on a beautiful September morning etc ( and before somebody freaks over this comment, be aware that no gunshots from any person with a concealed carry permit would have done more damage to an airliner than several guys with boxcutters did .... a few bullets might have SLOWLY decompressed a cabin and a particularly unlucky shot MIGHT have hit something vital but would not have also eliminated the redundant systems. No matter how many passenger might have been hit, the casualties still would have been FAR lower than what the box cutters ultimately produced. )
At least, the newspaper has all the armed guards' names and addresses.
so some newspaper lists all the registered gun owners on a website where you can look to see where guns are and who owns what, the current mood is that guns are killing machines and not really usable for anything else. Exceptions for hunting allowed, but you do that with a different kind of gun than an AK-47 or an AR-15, which are clearly not for hunting, just shooting AT people.
gun people are being viewed through the lens of "psychopaths" and then people start throwing death threats, therefore proving the point that perhaps they are psychopaths....AWESOME WIN!!
I can understand the kick people get from firing them, but I don't understand why they need that in their house. Is america such a dangerous country to live in? perhaps you should fix that, then you won't need guns, like we did in europe.
I view most gun owners I've read or seen on the telly as complete nutjobs, they say things like, a well armed militia, we can defend ourselves if the government turns bad, etc, etc. Are these guys for real? you could not in a million years, take down the government in it's current state, with your piddling stock of semi or fully automatic rifles, what is that going to do against a tank? I suppose you're gonna tell me you can blow the tracks off, awesome, but there are hundreds of tanks.....
I said this once on a forum a week or so ago and the answer was, you don't attack the tank, you attack the crew inside who get out to eat, etc, etc. The response is obvious, you have to survive that long in the first place, which you won't do.
ANYBODY, NO EXCEPTIONS, would get killed within an hour if the government turned up on your doorstep, even if you scored some minor kills, you've be overwhelmed eventually and you'd lose, there is no tactical way for you to win, they can fire missiles at you from 100's of km's away. You're toast.
so anybody saying it's to protect themselves against the government is a crack head....they have no grip on reality AT ALL, so to be honest, I don't like the idea of them owning guns, just in case one of them goes "nuttier than normal" and starts running around main street wasilla doing a number on people.
So that takes care of the people owning the big, killing machine type weapons, what about people who hunt, well, typically they own guns which aren't really a problem, it's the crazy people we have to look out for, anybody sensible enough to know how to hunt and put food on their table from the local environment is clearly a couple of grades more intelligent than the rest of them, so I trust those guys a heck of a lot more.
pistols? yeah I guess in self defence, but why do you have to have guns in the first place? are people in america so dangerous that you can't trust anybody......jees....fix your screwed up society man....first world country? doesn't look like it to me....california, new york, florida (parts of), san francisco, perhaps those parts are first world, but the rest? no effing way, the rest is full of sister fucking religious lunatics who force women to take trans-vaginal ultrasounds to listen to the heartbeat of the baby they are going to kill to try to shame women in taking care of their lifes and their businesses, they are the guys propping up congress and the house of representatives and making sure the military industrial complex keeps on trotting along....healthcare? holy mackeral......bleeding to death in a hospital because your insurance is out of date, are you serious?? what kind of human does that...a shitty human, a piece of crap I hope one day runs out of insurance and dies, cause I'm sick of living in a world populated by these assholes.
a lot of americans who visit barcelona, spain where I live, say they would never return, they spend 1 year studying and then move to london, or thailand for 6 months, perhaps australia after that.....all americans of about 20 years old, should just leave that stinking cesspool and come to europe...
your country is a mess, sort your shit out and you wouldn't have these problems in the first place!
Look at things this way: Americans are sleeping; the few that feel concerned about privacy are losing the war.
Inflight of that, I'd argue that anything that may shock people into reacting is fine.
IANAA (I am not an American) but why don't they turn the tables on the Newspaper and publish the names, specialities and addresses of the editorial staff of the paper in a full-page advertisement in its biggest rival in the city?
I assume that most of that data should be "publicly available" via some means or other...
After all, turnabout is still considered fair play in most places. /evil_grin
Part Time Philosopher, Oft Times Romantic, Full Time Unix Geek
typical hypocritical leftists their own privacy infringing tastic turned on them and they dont like it.
no problem, when the revolution comes and the criminals get justice there will be plenty of lampposts to hang them from.
dirtbags wont be forgotten.
Yeah, maybe your kid if you're that inept to believe what you just wrote.
I couldn't let this one fly just in case somebody reads this and takes it seriously. The shotgun does not throw a basketball-sized ball of death down the fucking hallway. At 3-4 meters it's more than likely going to be the size of a tennis ball depending on the ammunition used, as well as the choke and other aspects of the weapon in question.
And if you don't think that double-aught buckshot can't burn through an interior wall and whack little Timmy, I've got a bridge to sell you.
In addition, the whole First Amendment issue: I've got friends of mine in the NRA and other firearms organizations who are receiving death threats from left-wing morons. Thoughts on inciting violence? Hmmm??? Was the purpose of the article to inform or inflame? You mentioned that many interpretations are valid. I think the article was written for sensationalism and page hits.
The dictatorship you are describing is mostly in place already. Sure, it's not a single person but a group of people that are ruling it. Right wing religious? Compared to world politics, both democrats and republicans fit that bill. majority of gun owners backing it up? Sure, both parties get a large group of gun owners supporting them. You may think that the political differences between democrats and republicans are big, but 95% or more are trivial and marginal. You have no (significant amount of) liberals or socialists in your government. Even though a large amount of your population is Hispanic or otherwise not conforming to the white right wing Christian demography, they don't have any significant representation in your government.
"The devils biggest trick is convincing you he does not exist." You are already in your dictatorship, it's just hidden well enough for you to believe it's a democracy. Do a nation wide one-man-one-vote style election for parliament every for years and see what comes out of that. You may see a very big political change within 20 years.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
So you believe it's not a right, but a privilege granted by the government?
Grunka-lunka-dunkity-darmed guards!
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.
Shouldn't the newspaper live to its "no gun" ideals and live by example? They should just protect themselves with kindness and understanding.
The Red Army was 100% armed citizenry, and they were fighting professional troops (virtually all officers were aristocrats, and they fought for the White Army.) The armed peasants won.
Coming out of a 4-year war they were less "armed peasants" than the Allied forces in WWII were "armed farmers".
Revolution took place in 1917 - after years of fighting in WWI devastated their army and the economy.
That provided both a tired and disgruntled military and a plentiful number of civilians familiar with the use of guns.
19 million went to war - by 1917, 2 million deserted, 1.8 million were killed, 5 million were wounded and 2 more million were prisoners of war.
The Red Guard itself was formed from factory workers, soldiers and sailors - look up the role of the cruiser Aurora in the October Revolution.
Meanwhile, WWI is still ongoing.
Not being an actual, formally trained, centrally commanded army, the Red Guard militia is torn to pieces by the German army.
So, while signing a treaty with the Germans, Soviets formed the Red Army - and started recruiting.
Now the peasants came - but not directly to battle the Whites.
Instead they went to recruitment centers, to be properly trained.
Those "peasants" you speak of were trained recruits, lead by experienced veterans, united under one command - fighting a loose confederation of warlords without central command, leadership or united political goal.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
There's NO WAY these legal gun owners would ever be a threat to the worthless, unethical fucks at this paper (who bloody well know it, too). These scum have already demonstrated that they have no ethics and now they're trying to paint those [they've fucked over] in a negative light, in a shallow attempt to frame the debate and draw attention away from their so-called mistake.
Syria, Liberia and to a lesser degree Egypt show how hard it is to overthrow a well armed dictatorship.
Egypt: overthrown.
Syria: almost overthrown.
If anything we are being shown how in modern times any armed group can overthrow even the best armed dictatorship, if they are determined.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The psycho that shot up the elementary school did not have a gun permit. How is this map of permit owners in any way relevant? Oh, thats right, it isn't. They're just trying to stir up drama to get page views. I'm glad Christopher Fountains posted the home addresses of the newspaper staff in response.
Astonishing how twice now there have been posts about this incident and yet no one writing the summaries ever bothered to look up the name of the damn newspaper!
If Obama were to declare martial law tomorrow, we wouldn't need to fight the army. We know where his supporters live. They're "soft targets." Just start hauling max Obama donors (and liberal newspaper editors) out of their houses in the middle of the night and execute them in the middle of the street. That would put the fear of an armed citizenry into them quite quickly...
of liberty over an unarmed populous while riding her magical unicorn. You might as well go argue with some of the fine gentlemen down on the city street corner yelling angrily at themselves in incomprehensible speech patterns, you will get more intelligent discourse.....
How many US citizens would RISK harm to procure freedom. Very few people willingly die for any cause, but many will take significant risk for a cause they believe in.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
Yeah, not sure how regulating the size of the mag is going to make much difference. The Sandy Hook shooter and the Batman shooter both had multiple weapons, anyway, so if one ran out they could just grab the next.
I predicted they would all buy guns, but this is pretty much the same thing.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
You tell us you can read the minds of the publisher?
I might as well bite the low-hanging fruit: do you think said publisher would react in the manner as above if their intent was not to antagonize? Do you think they would have not redacted said publication as soon as they realized how it was perceived? You don't have to be a mind-reader to read peoples' reactions. Instead, you apparently claim to be the reactionary mind-reader, considering I stated that I was not prepared to argue any position but the very singular one of ethics that I made, but yet you prattle about things completely unrelated to my argument. Additionally, another post mentioned this, but it bears reiteration: anonymity is powerful. By my observation, those threats don't necessarily originate from gun owners. Unless you're privy to information unbeknownst to the rest of us, I think you might have some soothsayers in your ancestry.
But the truth here is that a gun owner has a huge responsibility that comes with owning a deadly weapon, and they are obligated to be "above" and to be wiser than than others, just as a black belt is obligated to avoid a fight until he or she is attacked.
I believe somebody famous once said that the pen is mightier than the sword. Therefore, would it not be salient that anyone who wields a "pen" (in the sense of public visibility) be even wiser than anyone who wields a "sword"? That's all my query asks, nothing more.
And you create a false equivalency.
Go study some ethics. Or maybe just watch how people act, because that equivalency is very much not false. If we take wisdom and restraint out of the picture, no self-respecting person would ever allow their ego to survive aggression or humiliation without some equal or greater response of force. It's human nature.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
How do we know they didn't fabricate these threats themselves? Did they even file any police reports? I'm pretty skeptical that any of the CCW owners actually called the newspaper and threatened any of the editors.
When we see nations around us performing better than us in some measure, the smart man observes and attempts to learn from their behavior.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
I think you are giving the crazy people too much credit. Under ideal conditions, yeah, it ain't that hard. But under stress in conditions that the shooter has never experienced before, seems like there is a reasonable chance of fumbling and even dropping the magazine on the ground.
Dude, they're crazy people. What seems crazy to sane people seems normal to crazy people. Besides, I don't know about you, but as a gun owner I've practiced inserting magazines. Also, I live in California, where we have these mandated limits, and I wound up with a pistol whose magazine accepts eight rounds. In the case that I miss some shots (as you say, we live in an imperfect world, and I'm considering a self-defense case) or drop a magazine, I have a two-mag pouch. :)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I think geography would be more important than numbers.
Based on the last election and basic demography, the "left" has large quantities of poor people in urban cities. The right has much smaller population densities but controls the Southern coast and large swaths of resource-rich central US.
I would think any protracted stalemate or conflict would leave the left with a large population it couldn't feed and a serious lack of energy resources. The right would have a fairly well-armed indigenous population that could feed itself but may find itself numerically outnumbered.
After a month of conflict it's not hard to see the left struggling to maintain control over a large, poor urban population with inadequate food and energy resources.
The military is the toss-up. They volunteer army has both a large, rural White contingent AND a large Hispanic and African American contingent. It's easy to see a splintering of the military or even possibly sitting out the conflict to avoid division or to maintain external threat protection.
It's hard to see generic Federal armed forces, even in full paramilitary mode, easily dealing with 20 million armed Americans without at least the logistical support of the military if not material and weapons.
The 20 million number is loosely based on 1/3 of Romney's popular vote, minus 5 million who wouldn't participate plus 5 million who wouldn't vote for him because he was too liberal or a Mormon but would be considered to support armed resistance due to their philosophical leanings.
And the tolerant left shows itself once again. One of the reasons the USA is a great country is because we allow close minded people like you to have a voice. Gun owners who have legally obtained their firearms are far less likely to break the law.
You're great at strawmen.
Very few liberals fear licensed CCW-holders or law-abiding citizens. What scares us shitless is their cousins, kids, grandkids, roommates, etc.
With at least regards to Columbine, I don't think it would matter. I was in highschool at the time and I read a lot about the shooting. There were many descriptions of them casually walking about the school, setting off their bombs, reloading, even video of Eric Harris calmly dropping on one knee to take aim and pick people off. I don't think a magazine size restriction would have made any difference to those two.
You were doing so good until you went off the rails about them coming for your income (that Constitutional amendment has been around for nearly a century now) and your guns (LOL I will personally give you $1000 if the government starts confiscating pistols and rifles and shotguns, because it is not going to happen and you're just rabidly paranoid)
you can right now print high cap mags. one time use most likely. you can also make your own from sheet steel and some tin snips in about the same amount of time.
The greatest right given is the right to be wrong...
I'm having trouble thinking of anything more hypocritical than declaring that other people shouldn't enjoy the right to defend themselves with guns, while defending yourself with guns.
Strawman fallacy. They did not "declare that other people shouldn't enjoy the right to defend themselves with guns"; you invented that to make them easier to attack. They published public lists of gun permit holders.
What would be hypocritical: hiring armed guards and seeking to hide the fact, which they haven't. They've been equally public about hiring the guards as they were publishing the list.
Maybe you could suggest something - I'm at a loss.
You could start by learning the most common logical fallacies, and not using them.
What I find amusing: the gun owners are claiming publishing the list makes them the target of burglaries/robberies, endangering them. Bit odd, considering they own their guns for "home defense", don't you think?
Please help metamoderate.
as opposed to "believed to be incorrect." If I comment "1 = 2, and it's true because I believe it to be so" they are materially incorrect. In my tiny opinion that's can be worse than flamebait because it's blatant, probably even willful ignorance presented as naivety - basically the MO of an attention-whore.
If they say "1 = 2" and provide a mathematical proof, that's an entirely different matter, they are not sparking needless debate.
So, Dave, this is not a matter of viewpoint, but of blatant incorrectness. As /. tries to be a site for grown-ups, I was hoping to add levity to my reply to a brash attention-whore, and maybe suggest an improvement, tongue-in-cheek-wise.
Then again, maybe you disagree and you'd like to see a lot more debate on ID vs Creationism? ;)
Sent from my ENIAC
Does it help to have armed guards if everyone knows their name and address too?
I mean, they post addresses of child molesters and other sex criminals. Why shouldn't I know who on my block I should worry about - say, if I hear a loud argument, I'll know to call the cops and warn them someone there owns a gun?
Finally, as an old aquaintance once put it, the invasion of Normandy was unneccesary, since it was inevitable that the Wehrmacht would fall to the invincible French Resistance.
And, let's not, all the revolutions going on, the rebels are getting weapons a) from their own military, and/or b) from other countries, not from their own arsenels... unless you're living in Somalia.
And anyone who htinks the initial clause about "a well-regulated militia" has nothing to do with anyone's right to own all the guns they want, of all kinds, is a psychotic asshole (and, by the way, yes, your cock *is* too small).
mark
Wrong, from the US point of view ALL dictatorships arise from leftist thought. In America the right believes in a small, limited government and personal freedom, but the left believes in the supremacy of the state. It is IMPOSSIBLE for "the right" in America to create a dictatorship while history has shown that leftist "supremacy of the state" thought has led to all modern dictatorships. Of course, that is also why you have so many examples of leftist commentators in print and on TV calling for the torture and deaths of people they disagree with -- it's the first thing leftists do when they get their dictatorship.
It is still orders of magnitude more complicated than printing a page on an inkjet printer. That's what he's talking about - so easy that basically anyone could do it on a whim. Kind of like how easy it is to print "close enough" counterfeit money today.
...for a very good reason.
If you've ever played a "violent" video game you know the best time to drop your enemy is in the precious few seconds he's reloading.
And also about deterrence. That's why murder laws are on the books. We can't stop murder but the punishment for it is severe. Imagine how bad the murder problem would be if it was legal.
Because frankly if the newspaper found out how many guns and how much ammunition they owned, it would either trigger a police investigation or they would get their home robbed of tens of thousands of dollars worth of guns.
One of the ironies of gun ownership, you're likely to get home invaded just by having them. It would be like advertising "Hey I've got an 103 inch $10,000 big screen TV inside!"
Here is the outcome.
as opposed to "believed to be incorrect." If I comment "1 = 2, and it's true because I believe it to be so" they are materially incorrect. In my tiny opinion that's can be worse than flamebait because it's blatant, probably even willful ignorance presented as naivety - basically the MO of an attention-whore.
If they say "1 = 2" and provide a mathematical proof, that's an entirely different matter, they are not sparking needless debate.
But there's nothing in the post you were referring to (at least, I assume it's what prompted you to desire such an option) that was anywhere near "1=2". If you would have modded that post down as "materially incorrect", that just makes me feel even more strongly that such an option should never exist. "Troll" and "Flamebait" get abused far too much as it is. I've seen far too many posts -- including ones I disagree with -- receiving that. If it weren't for the occasional actual racist post, spam, or the threat of something like Goatse.cx returning, I'd just as soon get rid of negative modding entirely. About a third of the time I see "Flamebait", for instance, the moderator apparently thinks it means "I want to flame this person", not "this person is only saying this to generate flames rather than trying to make a point."
And no I don't want more ID/Creationism debates, but I doubt such an option would stop them.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
So it's only fair also to publish a list of the reporters that compiled and published that list of gun-owners, also complete with addresses and everything?
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Here's the unintended consequence that liberals always fail to consider when they do something stupid like this. Publishing a list of gun owners would be a great way for criminals to know whose house NOT to break into. Somwhow I get the feeling some criminal will find his way into the house of an anti-gun liberal dumbass. Darwin was right about a least one thing.
If you want to carry ANY kinda weapon, and you don't want to be on a list - then don't carry.
For the vast majority of folks that do want to know you carry - I'd rather not live near you, because to me - I don't know you any more than I would the
convicted rapist, child molester, or "other" that I can also get a published listing for.
Sorry - that was your choice to carry !
Dear everyone,
Rhetoric protip: If you want to sound like you know what you're talking about don't use the words "bad guys" to refer to dangerous criminals. It sounds like something a 7 year old playing cops and robbers would say.
Are the guards they hired on the list they published?
Most people are mostly good most of the time.
How nice it would be for the gun lobby if they just turned the other cheek. I see a very real life or death situation. OK
Obviously their protection requires armed guards -- i wonder if they are using BB guns or assault weapons for protection -
Those newspaper people are such idiots!!!
First, that the editor and newspaper have the foresight of a goldfish, and are getting what they asked for. This is not an unheard-of responce.
And second, that the terrorists threatening violence have BOTH the foresight of a goldfish AND it's brains. And it's too bad that they hate the Constitution and our founding fathers.
Whatever happened to, "I disagree with you / find your ideas abhorrent, but will fight to the death to protect your right to speak them."?
The constitution is not a cafeteria style meal, where you pick and choose what you like and ignore the rest. It's all or nothing.
People its not assualt rifles its hammers....In 2011 there were more people killed by hammers then assault weapons. 496vs327. We need hammer control!! Get the word out to your congresswomen and let her know you want all assault high torque carpenter hammers banned and all normal hammer buyers must pass a background check. Let Senator Feinstein know now you want Hammer control before another innocent person gets killed by another hammer. Get hammer control now!!
N/T
Publishing a list of gun owners is like painting targets on people. Effectively pointing out individuals in an attempt to shame them. Like what the police do when folks commit some crimes.
So it would be the best solution to ban magazines and clips entirely and only allow guns to be loaded with one bullet at a time. Then those 3-4 seconds would really start adding up and people would have a chance to run away from a crazy gunman.