Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Newspaper That Published Gun-Owners List Hires Armed Guards

Posted by samzenpus on from the hoisting-with-your-own-petard dept.

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.'"

37 of 1,435 comments (clear)

  1. Mommy... by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... is that what irony looks like?

    1. Re:Mommy... by Montezumaa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are no known threats. The FBI has laughed off the bullshit claims by the idiots that posted people's information. The newspaper is looking to demonize people exercising their rights. Fuck them.

      The irony is that the newspaper, looking to demonize people exercising their rights, is looking to armed guards to protect them. The irony is extremely thick.

    2. Re:Mommy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How is "Gun owners are incredibly poor at introspection." modded "insightful"? Sounds overgeneralized and condescending to me...

    3. Re:Mommy... by Montezumaa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Government has no rights. It most certainly doesn't have any right to know what I own or possess, until said government obtains a warrant. That is why we have the Fourth Amendment. So, until some asshole obtains a warrant, you best believe I will never register my property, nor seek a license to exercise any of my rights.

    4. Re:Mommy... by shentino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. The lesson learned here is "don't piss off people with guns" rather than anything noble about the constitution.

      The cold hard facts that force of arms and intimidation decides things instead of merit.

    5. Re:Mommy... by atriusofbricia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What a twat. The archetype of what's wrong with America.

      The archetype of what's wrong with America is someone who doesn't roll over and give up their rights on demand by some government bureaucrat? There is exactly nothing wrong in what the previous poster said. Government has no rights and they absolutely have no right to know what I, or anyone else, do or do not own.

      Who is the twat I would say?

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    6. Re:Mommy... by kwiqsilver · · Score: 5, Informative

      Are you seriously trying to associate a statist quote like ignorance of the law is no excuse with Thomas Jefferson? Thomas Jefferson?

      The Thomas Jefferson who said The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive?

      The Thomas Jefferson who said, Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny?

      The Thomas Jefferson who said, I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master?

      The quote you allude to is from some Briton a few decades earlier.

      However you are correct about it being public information. Yet another reason to not live in New York.

      Incidentally, here are some other Jefferson quotes:

      No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

      The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

      Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.

      What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.

      Oh yeah, Jefferson was a mega-gun nut, but then all the founding fathers were in favor of unrestricted civilian gun ownership, since they had just survived a war started when the British began confiscating arms from the colonies engaged in peaceful protest, and won primarily by the effort of civilian militias.

      I'm soooo getting on a DHS watch list for this.

    7. Re:Mommy... by dark_requiem · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You seem to be confused between the drastically different concepts of "what government does" and "what government has a right to do". By your "logic", the government has the right to do anything the government says it has the right to do. Believe that's called "tyranny".

    8. Re:Mommy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who said anything about mass shootings? Only you. Mass shootings kill about as many people in this country as terrorism. They are that rare. So attacking people with mental illnesses makes about as much sense as profiling Muslims.

      The real gun violence that kills significant amounts of people is due to the War on Drugs, high value property thefts, and domestic violence. All of these are due to easy access to guns and have no relation to mental illness. They are cultural.

      I would have hoped that people on Slashdot would be smart enough to realize that if it has been studied and established that the rate of violence by people with mental illnesses or Muslims is no higher than that of the general public, then they shouldn't be ostracized and attacked. Most people are too stupid to realize this, but I would hope those of us here are smart enough to get past the scary news hyperbole and focus on the actual problem. If you want to save lives then you need to minimize the stigma on mental illness, not increase it. And you need to focus on the poor, disenfranchised, but mentally healthy youths who are being gunned down in our streets every day. From their point of view, gun violence is entirely logical. It is how they survive in a society that doesn't give a shit about them.

    9. Re:Mommy... by uncqual · · Score: 5, Informative

      I assume you are not from the U.S. so perhaps a quick US Civics lesson is in order.

      In the U.S., the Federal government has limited powers -- ONLY those explicitly ceded to it by the United States Constitution. The Federal government has no rights whatsoever. We elect politicians to administer those powers that we ceded to the Federal Government - and that is IT.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    10. Re:Mommy... by flaming+error · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In enlightenment philosophy, rights were those self-evident truths that all men had the same freedoms to life, to liberty, to self-determination. Governments don't have such "rights". Democratic governments have responsibilities. Other governments have force and caprice.

      As to "the right to tax you", If we were to read the original constitution we'd see that congress was delegated the power to tax imports, exports, and the states themselves. It provided a formula for how to share taxes among the states, which was based on the state population, broken down by indians, slaves, and everybody else. But nowhere was Congress delegated authority to tax individuals, until the 19th amendment.

      That new power to tax individuals was (and is) considered unconstitutional by many, because they believe the 19th amendment was not properly ratified - snuck through the system with The People largely unaware, with dubious and incomplete records of many of the requisite elections.

      Even if we accept the 19th amendment as legitimate, that tax regime is not a self-evident truth, it's a human invention, an arbitrary method of funding the government.

      Our government is just a glorified home owners' association that the home owners themselves formed and chartered, and can also revise, re-charter or (with some difficulty) disband.

      The federal government has the job of doing exactly what the States (via Senators and Representatives) tell it to do, nothing less, nothing more.

      I am pleased to support it when it provides me services, because I feel I share a duty. Not because the US government has a "right" to my labor and property.

    11. Re:Mommy... by penix1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But not having to register property that I legally purchased strikes me as an important part, in particular, of gun ownership.

      So you would apply that to your land? It is registered in the form of a deed. How about your car? It is registered as well as has a license and in most, if not all states an insurance requirement.

      Personally, I believe we need to treat guns the same as we treat automobiles. Require that the owner is trained and licensed to use them. Make sure they are insured for when they are used on a person that that person or their survivors can get something more than they currently are getting (nothing). Identify each guns ballistic characteristics at the time of manufacture and tie it to the last registered owner for easier identification of the responsible party. In short, take it from a right to a responsibility with real world consequences when that responsibility is violated.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    12. Re:Mommy... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I assume you are not from the U.S. so perhaps a quick US Civics lesson is in order.

      When you're done with him, could you please provide said lesson to the US Congress, the President, and the US Supreme Court?

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    13. Re:Mommy... by tftp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just because a group of thugs calls themselves a "government" does not grant them some magical rights apart from those possessed by the citizens who consent to be ruled by that government.

      The consent is not a factor here. Most governments on the planet operate without consent of the governed. Mao was correct: the power comes from the barrel of the gun. The government can shoot you and get away with murder. You cannot. That's how it works.

      Are you suggesting that might makes right? That if you can get 50.1% of a group to agree with you, then anything you and your representatives do is legitimate?

      I don't like it, but that's exactly how the world works. As soon as a group has enough power to do what it wants, it goes ahead and does it. The 50.1% is often not a requirement; you could have 30% and rule over others - as long as those "other" are three distinct groups with 23% each. USSR was ruled by the educated elite who did not number more than 10% of the population. That was more than enough to keep the rest scared or imprisoned. As a recent example of the USA shows, 50.1% of voters can force their choice of the President onto the remaining 49.9% (I'm omitting the comparison of candidates here, it would be depressing in itself.)

      To me, that sounds more like hell on Earth than civilization.

      Welcome to the club. Machiavelli and de Montesquieu were not contemporaries, but someone put together their dialogs when they met in Hell. The enlightened de Montesquieu was unable to come up with a model of the society that would work any better than the tyranny postulated by Machiavelli. Here is the formula:

      bad dictator < democracy < good dictator

      Democracy is just an insurance against the bad dictator. But the premiums are killing you. It's mediocrity forever, as opposed to highs and lows of monarchies and dictatorships. In Deus Ex merging with Helios is the wisest ending because the two other endings (giving power to humans) will only result in recurrence of the struggle.

      Unless you redefine "right" to mean anything one group can do to another with minimal fear of reprisal due to greater number and/or better armaments,

      That's exactly how ZANU-PF komissars understand the word. They are not alone in this interpretation - victors are usually merciless. In the USA the victorious left is already laying claim on your income and your guns - the stuff that separates a free man from an indigent.

    14. Re:Mommy... by chthon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is a background history to guns that U.S. citizens tend to forget, because they do not seem to understand the middle ages.

      The initial development of gunpowder lead to to weapons, specifically for war. The later development of portable guns was always in the function of killing people. It is probably only in the 18th century that guns became easy enough to be used as hunting tools (can't find references about this).

      People on the North American frontier needed guns to defend and to feed themselves. This was probably the first and last time in history that guns became a tool for personal support.

      I think that is the main difference in culture between the US and Europe. On the European continent, guns have mostly (99.99%) been part of the armies, which were directed by the kings and nobility. I think that there is a deep, unconscious suspicion against gun ownership in Europe. In Europe, guns have never been the tools of liberation, but always of oppression. In the U.S., this became the opposite.

      However, I would warn those people who think that their gun ownership make them safe for criminals or can be used against their government.

      In the first case, if a criminal wants to get you, he will take more time planning and be prepared to use means that he can get to, but you can't. In the case of petty criminality, citizen gun ownership will probably make a difference, but in the case of heavy criminality, you will almost certainly lose.

      In the second case, I suggest that people who think they can use their guns successfully against their government, study the Boer Wars. Yes, it was not easy for the English to succeed, but succeed they finally did. It is just a case of planning, time and means. Then compare the former English army at the end of the 19th century with the current U.S. Army.

    15. Re:Mommy... by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Human beings have rights. Governments have powers that they exercise. When the exercise of the latter interferes with the former, that is the simple definition of tyranny.

      Precisely.

      This is the radical concept on which the US was founded that sets it apart from every other government on the planet. In fact, the only government built on this principle in 5,000 years.

      That is why I blow-off those who say things like "Well, $FOREIGNCOUNTRY/REGION runs things this way, why doesn't the US?". Because the US is based on concepts and principles unique to the US. If there wasn't such a difference in basic principles, there wouldn't have been an American Revolutionary War.

      If the US goes down, the last bastion of, and only real positive force for, individual freedom in the entire world in 5,000 years of human history will be gone. There will be no place left to flee to. Hell, it's already gotten so bad that now people in the US are looking around vainly trying to find someplace to escape the ever-more-tyrannical US government.

      Why is it becoming ever-more tyrannical? Because people have fallen to the notion that the US can be governed successfully based on the principles of other nations' and regions' governments, instead of the principles laid out in the US Constitution and the writings of it's authors. The further the US has strayed, the worse things have gotten, and the worse they will get if this course is not halted and reversed.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    16. Re:Mommy... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People have rights. People delegate *powers* to the state. The state does not have rights. Con Law 101, or maybe Con Law 1.

      How in blazes did your ignorance get modded +5 informative? Oh.... I guess the mods need to take Con Law 1, too.

      It's very interesting how different definitions of political words get used.

      "Right" is a particularly tricky one. Despite American Jingoists insistance that the mid-18th century Enlightenment definition is the only possible one, and that anyone using it any other way should shot, it has multiple meanings.

      An older definition is that a 'right' is specific to an individual or group of individuals. Medieval rebellions in defense of "rights" were not demanding everyone have the exact same rights, they were demanding the King respect the right of different groups of people to be treated differently. It's a perfectly valid use of the term, but it's also the exact opposite of the pseudo-intelectual definition you just gave. It's even perfectly valid in some American legal contexts. For example, you don't have the right to practice medicine in Ohio unless you get the approval of a group of people who do have that right. The right to sell Star Wars DVDs do not belong to everyone in the entire world equally, they belong to the one guy who has the Copyright.

      Since this is all very confusing, with right on one hand meaning something literally anyone can do and on the other hand meaning something only one person (or a handful of people) can do, in common usage "Right" just means legal ability to do something. I have the right to sue your ass because there isn't a Court Order that says otherwise. The Government has the right to tax your ass because you can't get a court order telling them to stop. I have the right to call your ass stupid because the First Amendment says so, not because some 18th Century French Baron thought it was only natural and a generation of thinkers every American reveres agreed.

  2. Good Guys With Guns? by phantomcircuit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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....

    1. Re:Good Guys With Guns? by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 5, Informative

      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....

      Well, they may be saying is the only way they can stop bad guys with guns is trained, licensed, regulated guys with guns, who can only carry on duty, don't take their firearm home, etc. Just like most of the civilized world do.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    2. Re:Good Guys With Guns? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Informative

      Said information is publicly available. If the second amendment protects gun owners, the first amendment protects this newspaper.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Good Guys With Guns? by torkus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The larger problem is determining who is the good guy and who is the bad guy often enough.

      Sure, someone shooting children is most likely the bad guy.

      Sure, the FIRST guy running through the mall with a guy is most likely the bad guy...what about the second one that's behind him? Savior or coconspirator?

      Sure, the guy in the uniform is probably a good guy, but there are plenty of examples when that's not the case - be it fake uniforms or unscrupulous security/police.

      You know...now that I think about it there's only one single person I can be sure is the good guy. Me. Therefore I should be armed at all times in all places. Then i'm 100% sure a good guy is armed to protect my interests. You all should do the same. It worked in the recent mall shooting even though the media declined to focus on it as it doesn't suit their "neutral" agenda.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    4. Re:Good Guys With Guns? by Intropy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It was the newspaper's right to publish the data they published. It was still a bad thing to do. The first amendment would also protect their right to publish lists of suspected communists or records of purchases of prophylactics and pregnancy tests. The first amendment protects their rights to publish that information. It doesn't make it not a violation of privacy and all around dick move. The second issue, of course, is the existence of the list to begin with. They got the list from the government, which compiled it through fairly straightforward violations of the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.

    5. Re:Good Guys With Guns? by kwiqsilver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except for the a higher percentage of bad people are gun owners than compared to good people, therefore if you want to correlate bad persons its easier to check the gun registry.

      That might be the most retarded thing I've read on /.

      While a higher percentage of bad people are gun owners, you won't find them on the CCW lists or filling out 4473s at the local gun shop. They illegally buy illegal guns illegally imported from Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

      The projection bias, bravado, paranoia, necessity that sometimes leads to gun ownership, is a pretty strong indication that the person is bad or crazy.

      And how many case studies did you perform before pulling this conclusion out of your ass?
      The fact that so many bad guys have guns, and they're so easy for bad guys to buy, despite all of the laws against it (I'm confounded as to why these criminals keep violating the gun laws), would prompt a rational person to look for a form of protection. Therefore I conclude that the number of guns a person owns is directly proportional to his sanity.

      I cannot count the number of times I have seen John Wayne or 'gangasta' wannabes flash their weapon, as if they are somehow the just and righteous parties (mass killers are included), but end up just being either dumb, ignorant, or mentally ill.

      I can't count the number of times a unicorn has bought me lunch, and probably for the same reason.
      I'd wager I know a few more legal gun owners than you do, and we as a group do not flash our guns. We are normal middle-class people who know that the cops can't be everywhere and that there are evil, crazy, or otherwise dangerous people in the world.

      Without guns there are no bad people with guns, and no need for good people with guns, or bad people who think they are good people with guns.

      So when a 250lb. man without a gun rapes a 110lb. woman without a gun, that's okay to you? That's sounds like a situation where a good guy with a gun would be really damn useful. Incidentally, a woman who carries a firearm is 310 times more likely to successfully fend off a rapist than a woman who does not.
      And that's according to FBI crime data.

      People who want to ban guns in America fit into one of the following categories: would-be tyrants, rapists, murderers, muggers, or the useful idiots who allow the previous groups to be successful.

    6. Re:Good Guys With Guns? by dbc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Now seems like a good time to inject some uncomfortable facts. According the the latest FBI statistics, law enforcement officers are perpetrators of violent crime at *exactly* the same rate as the general population. This is not counting "police brutality" or any other duty-related charges, real or imagined. CCW holders on the other hand, are perpetrators of violent crime at about 1/20 the rate of the general population, and therefore at 1/20 the rate of law enforcement officers, also.

      So, using FBI statistics, the chance of a law enforcement officer using his firearms for nefarious ends are about 20X that of your neighbor with a CCW license doing likewise.

  3. Re:Publish the guards names by wgoodman · · Score: 5, Funny

    There's a good chance they already did.

  4. Irony by strikethree · · Score: 5, Insightful

    '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
  5. First amendment by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:First amendment by joebagodonuts · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not quite. The Amedment doesn't grant a right - it prohibits the Government from infringing on a right we already posess. Much discussion on this matter sems to be from the unspoken point of view that we get rights from our government, like a gift. Our constitution was written to restrict the power of the federal government.

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
  6. Assault Rifles by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 !
    1. Re:Assault Rifles by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Same thing as the "Right to bear arms" --- you think with your pissy little semi-automatic assault rifles you can fight the army?

      If -- and it's a big if, total hypothetical here, but if -- a dictatorship took power in the U.S. and an armed resistance composed of armed citizens opposed it, the experience of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as the example of resistance groups in Nazi-occupied areas during WWII suggests that a resistance force armed with rifles (even ones not capable of fully automatic fire) could put up significant resistance, yes. Hell, look at how much trouble the Branch Davidians gave the feds, and they were a bunch of frickin' nutcases.

      More importantly, though, armed citizens can protect themselves not only against criminals but against corrupt governments on the state and local level. Armed groups played a key role in winning civil rights for African-Americans during the 1960s, both by standing up directly against racist cops and by defending black citizens against violence when the police would not respond.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:Assault Rifles by dryeo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Syria, Liberia and to a lesser degree Egypt show how hard it is to overthrow a well armed dictatorship. India and the Soviet block show another way to overthrow a government.
      Besides for America to turn into a dictatorship would take the support of a good chunk of Americans. The dictatorship would probably be right wing religious with the majority of gun owners backing up the dictatorship as it is needed to stop those horrible liberals who only won the election due to immigrants or some such excuse.
      Most western countries that have descended into dictatorship have done it with the support of some of their citizens. I believe the usual ratio is approximately 1/3rd for, 1/3rd against and 1/3rd indifferent.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    3. Re:Assault Rifles by swillden · · Score: 5, Informative

      Note that military M16 has select-fire which can choose between semi-automatic, 3 round burst, & full-automatic.

      This is incorrect.

      The most widely deployed version of the M16, the M16A2 had three positions on the selector switch: safe, semi-automatic and three-round burst. There is no full auto setting, because the US military has decided that except in the hands of highly-trained troops full auto wastes ammunition to no effect (note that this is not the case for real machine guns, like the M60 and M243, which also burn through the ammo but can use it much more effectively).

      The M16A3 does have full auto rather than three-round burst, but it's used only by very small numbers of highly-trained troops. SEALs and such.

      The new M16A4, now standard issue for the Marine Corps and some Army units, has safe, semi and three-round burst. No full auto.

      No M16 variant has ever had a four-position selector switch, which is what would be needed to provide semi, three-round burst, full auto and a safety position.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Assault Rifles by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most western countries that have descended into dictatorship have done it with the support of some of their citizens. I believe the usual ratio is approximately 1/3rd for, 1/3rd against and 1/3rd indifferent.

      Hitler was elected.

      Sorry for the Godwin, but this is appropriate.

      Tyranny is often the tyranny of the majority. Turkey massacred Armenians. Germans massacred, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other despised minorities. The Chinese and Soviets slaughtered millions of their political opponents.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  7. Slight difference. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They have no right to the privacy of their handgun permit, which, by state law, is public information, which they knew when they applied for said permit.

    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.

  8. in this matter by doginthewoods · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  9. What about the non-gun-owners? by LF11 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is outrageous. What about all the NON-gun-owning homes? This newspaper just posted THIS HOME IS A GUN-FREE ZONE signs on all non-gun-owners' houses.

    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.

  10. Its never about the level of Firepower.. by ami.one · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Governments being overthrown by the citizens is never ever about the level of firepower.

    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,