Outrage after NY paper publishes names of gun permit holders

[k0ua]

Island, would you say, now that you have had some time to reflect on this act of publishing all of the names of the permit holders, that the unintended consequences, and possible bad outcomes of this information made it a rash, and thoughtless thing to do?

James K0UA

 

[/pine]

I swear we need a sarcasm font!

I looked but did not see a "tongue in cheek" smiley...I did find this one (sarcasm) :sarcastic:

 

[IslandTractor]

Island, would you say, now that you have had some time to reflect on this act of publishing all of the names of the permit holders, that the unintended consequences, and possible bad outcomes of this information made it a rash, and thoughtless thing to do?

James K0UA

The First Amendment can be a real *****. Problem is that if you limit the ability of newspapers or citizens in one instance you establish a slippery slope. Look at recent news from China were small fry public officials were outed for taking bribes but sites were closed down when big fish came under fire. The First Amendment prevents powerful forces from limiting what we can say or hear and it is worth allowing some abuse to insure that right is not diminished.

Although I have been arguing the newspapers side here I am well aware that the First Amendment can be abused just as I am quite sure those of you who are stalwart defenders of the Second would acknowledge it too can be abused. We do limit First Amendment rights but usually not on a hypothetical basis as has been argued here by those of you concerned that listing gun permit holders would put them at risk. I don't think it is clear those people are put at risk. As i have argued it would seem to me more likely that their unarmed neighbors would be more at risk. Compare that to screaming "Fire!" In a crowded theater (which has happened and caused deaths due to stampede of frightened people).

 

[RadarTech]

I just saw a blog entry that mentioned the anti-gunners and the New York maps of gun owners...

It went on to say that the screaming banner of hey here I am!!!
I'm a gun free zone!!


Then it went to say I wonder why the anti-gunners haven't figured that out....

Hmm.. Yep it could be a target right on them too!

Oh the irony!!!!

:drinking:

 

[MossRoad]

I think Second Amendment rights end when it puts others in danger. And, i can think of 26 people who recently suffered fatal injury because of one of their sportsman and firearm "self defense" right.

Right there pretty much sums it up.
You see it as a need for government protecting you from others and most TBN members see it as government granting them the right to defend themselves from others.

 

[k0ua]

The First Amendment can be a real *****. Problem is that if you limit the ability of newspapers or citizens in one instance you establish a slippery slope. Look at recent news from China were small fry public officials were outed for taking bribes but sites were closed down when big fish came under fire. The First Amendment prevents powerful forces from limiting what we can say or hear and it is worth allowing some abuse to insure that right is not diminished.

Although I have been arguing the newspapers side here I am well aware that the First Amendment can be abused just as I am quite sure those of you who are stalwart defenders of the Second would acknowledge it too can be abused. We do limit First Amendment rights but usually not on a hypothetical basis as has been argued here by those of you concerned that listing gun permit holders would put them at risk. I don't think it is clear those people are put at risk. As i have argued it would seem to me more likely that their unarmed neighbors would be more at risk. Compare that to screaming "Fire!" In a crowded theater (which has happened and caused deaths due to stampede of frightened people).

I would not be in favor of limiting newspapers their first amendment rights either. You see I think they should have limited themselves, just like the fire in the theater thing.. you just don't do that, because it could have bad consequences, no matter if you could get away with it under the first amendment or not. In my heart of hearts. true belief here, I think they did it because they hate guns, and wanted the gun owners to be ostracized by their non gun owning neighbors. They never thought of the other possible bad unintended consequences, like the theft angle, or the now know easy targets of the non gun owning neighbors. or the publishing of the names of gun owners (lets say divorced woman with a gun permit now) who was hiding from her violent ex. You might say, well he could have found out anyway, as this is all public knowledge.. sure, but now it may be poked in front of his face.. Sometimes just best to let sleeping puppy lie there, and not poke him. What if violent ex hubby goes over there and she shoots him. Justified or not, now you have a dead guy. There are a lot of things that "could happen", but I feel their intent was not good, not reasoned out and was not nice. Now that the the names and photographs and addresses and phone numbers of the perpetrators of this "un-niceness or thoughtless act" are out there, they are starting to feel some heat. Perhaps it will serve as a warning to others to not do this type of thing, not because they can't but because they shouldn't. I hope so.


James K0UA

 

[hosspuller]

I wonder if the staff of the Journal and
Reporter
Dwight R Worley
23006 139 Ave
Springfield Gardens, NY 11413
Phone: (718) 527-0832
has changed their view on publishing personal information of record now that theirs has been "outed" as a consquence of their action.

If anyone cares to see more, here's a link to a source .. http://www.dethguild.com/what-goes-a...k-a-rule-four/

 

[Huffmang]

The media causes more trouble then they are worth. Like some one on here said, now the crooks know where to steal guns!!

 

[RadarTech]

I wonder if the staff of the Journal and
Reporter
Dwight R Worley
23006 139 Ave
Springfield Gardens, NY 11413
Phone: (718) 527-0832
has changed their view on publishing personal information of record now that theirs has been "outed" as a consquence of their action.

If anyone cares to see more, here's a link to a source .. http://www.dethguild.com/what-goes-a...k-a-rule-four/

The link is broke

 

[daugen]

Perhaps it will serve as a warning to others to not do this type of thing, not because they can't but because they shouldn't. I hope so.

As I think we all hoped after the Kate Middleton incident where the long range camera photos of her frollicking topless on a private beach (a true misnomer) were substantially
squelched by just that. Sure you can find them on the web if you search hard enough, but your kids won't see them on the tv at least.