Remember this type of vintage commie artwork? There's lots more where that came from. I remember these kind of posters with guns plastered all over NYC.
Posted on 01/04/2013 4:14:10 PM PST by Libloather
I’d know how big that lawsuit I’d launch, if I were the guard’s union.
Time to sue the crap out of that newspaper.
On what grounds?
Make them up as you go along.
Equal treatment under the law, suckers.
/johnny
Well said, sir.
As I have said on other threads, we should post the addresses of those people who do not have gun permits on a Google Map because they are the “desirable” neighbors and I am sure you want to live next to them.
Gotta love liberal hypocrisy..when Sarah Palin made that map a few years back with the little crosshairs on it..the media went nuts, and accused her of being an accessory to murder..but here you have a newspaper who published the names and addresses of law abiding citizens(Including Judge Jeanine Pirro, a former judge who has guns to protect herself from loons she put away as a judge), and I have heard stories about how women who were domestic violence victims and stalking victims now being harassed by their abusers/stalkers because now they know who has a gun and who doesn’t..yet no one in the media is calling out the newspaper as being responsible in what is going on..apparently if your a liberal newspaper you can get away with ANYTHING
“As I have said on other threads, we should post the addresses of those people who do not have gun permits on a Google Map because they are the “desirable” neighbors and I am sure you want to live next to them.”
—
Why lower yourself to their level?
.
Rockland County has been going down the crapper ever since Sheriff Ray Lindemann died.
Texas doesn't have firearms permits. Don't know if NM does or not, but when I was there, I never registered any of mine.
/johnny
Because it beats meeting them on their level when real bullets start to fly.
Last thing I want to see is a civil war with cordite smell wafting through American neighborhoods.
Best to be harsh up front. Harsher, even, than them, than have to have blood in the streets.
It's not the time to go-along-to-get-along.
/johnny
But people in the USA do not understand the equal treatment clause.
Too many groups claim special privileges of being protected. Women, minorities and gays, come to mind.
Charge Gannett and it’s editorial/reporting staff with accessory to making terroristic threats.
again, sue the paper into the ground. eff them all, they all stood together on this, nobody spoke out against it.
When lefties make posters like this its fine..remember liberals don’t have any standards, never have
So, is the paper now called The Urinal Spews???
Debate Begins Early Over Bill To Disclose State [Connecticut] Handgun Owners' Names, Addresses
I wonder when law enforcement is going to wake up and give some “special attention” to the newspaper publisher, editors, and reporters.
Police are not required to have permits. Their badge is their permit.
So, some of those houses not labeled on the map belong to law enforcement.
I am surprised that the names and addresses of the permit holders are not exempted from release by a state privacy act?
There is no limit to the stupidity of Leftist jackasses.
Addresses of criminals and their families.
Lists of Women who have had abortions (Ann Coulter’s idea)
Names of men who carry the HIV virus - what restaurants they work for - and if they're collecting full Social Security payments.. (bankrupting the system for the elderly and people who REALLY are disabled)
Just sue ‘em. Sue them into oblivion, so they have to shutter their building and fire each and every employee from the top editor to the janitor!
They deserve no less. In fact, they deserve even worse, but we aren’t tough minded enough as a country to REALLY give them what they deserve!!
Because that is the only level that works in today's society.
Better to sue the advertisers for enabling the commie papers. You will have a more wide ranging effect.
On what grounds?
Enabling commies to enable the criminals to cause harm.
Make them up as you go along.
Any good arguments are acceptable
They do if you want to take a certified firearm’s safety course. Other than that, this is New Mexico.
2014 midterm elections ping. Thanks Libloather.
Other than some rattlesnakes at or near my feet, and one crazy skunk that would NOT leave me alone, they didn't get used for much but plinking.
/johnny
Because refusing to stoop to your enemy’s level, only gets you cut off at the knees.
During the Revolution, the Brits “refused to stoop to the level of those animal Americans” (meaning guerrilla/Indian tactics, hiding, hitting officers and running away, it was ‘barbaric’ don’t you know).
And we all know how that turned out.
Right on!
I’ll bet their advertisers soon dry up!
In PA, we don’t “register” weapons. The only time you need a “permit” is if you carry concealed.
If the weapon is in plain sight, like on the dashboard of the car, “theoretically” it is NOT concealed, and therefore legal.
Now, that will cause a boat load of controversy. Thing may have changed and I’m not going to discuss it past this point.
I used to go everywhere on my BMW, complete with a saddle sheath, rifle plainly visible from the back of the bike. It was funny, on the turnpike, I’d pass Joe homebody with all his kids in the car, and all of them would point fingers and bother dad. At the rest stops, the ninnny nannies would pee themselves and run to find the nearest LEO.
PA State Bulls at that time were professional. “Yes ma’m, we can see he has rifle, and that’s as it should be.”
The looks of confusion were priceless.
This is where, and another reason why, that “shall not be infringed” part of the 2nd Amendment comes in.
I do think some states may (possibly) be able to justify a right to controll via a training/permitting process, of their citizens ability to “openly brandish” lethal weapons, specifically any visable, holstered handguns and knives.
Iffy, but then again, whenever I encounter uniformed police officers openly carrying weapons at the corner gas station or grocery store, I tend to become hyper-aware of personal space separation issues, and not give them any excuse to attack me.
BTW, quite a few of them would be easily disarmed and attacked with their own weapons, if I (little old lady, law abiding me) was intent on committing such a crime.
That newspaper should be shut down
Liberals have to be some of the stupidest people on the face of the earth.
It's is most acceptable. Maybe the scum called "corrections officers" will think twice about abusing inmates and treat them with some modicum of civility.
The family of my enemy is my enemy also.
Bingo. That is why the GOP gets shellacked every election: they put on an "we're above all that" air and get clobbered. Got to use street-fight tactics.
Almost always legally.(LOL)
Once in New Mexico, I brandished a tiny handgun to avert a potential “car jacking” situation, before the term “car jacking” was coined.New Mexico was an open carry state at that time.
Whether or not I still have any or even all of the guns listed on my next to the last official USAF PCS travel order, is nobodies business but my own.
I am certain the Feds have retained those records, but unsure if they would have ever shared them with Rockland County, NY, had I decided to settle there.
In Florida, real property ownership are public records and available online. Unless you are in the ‘special class’.
VIP status is given to LEO, judges, other govt officials, retired as well.
Equal treatment under the law is DENIED in Florida. Taxes and assessments are supposed to be for ALL citizens to see. When you exclude certain ones, citizens cannot even start to track cheating or special provision given to the VIP class. Property assessment is supposed to take all properties sold within a defined geographic area into consideration. Just how is that accomplished behind closed doors.
They don’t care about our 2nd Amendment rights - why should we care about their 1st Amendment rights?
It’s goose and gander - and yeah, first person murdered because what they printed - and yeah, sue ‘em. Take it all the way - - weaken their protections, compromise their rights. It’s what they’re doing...
Here’s a list of some of their advertisers: http://www.wcfoany.org/?p=197
This list includes regional and local businesses as well.
To #19: I’m surprised that the prison/jail guards haven’t paid the threatening prisoners a visit and lectured them on the errors of their ways.
After the first 4-5 are taken away in an ambulance to intensive care, I think the message will have been delivered in ernst.
Then sue the newspaper, its advertisers, staff, and parent company for “reckless endangerment” in a very big class action lawsuit.
They OWN IT.
I'm also surprised. State laws differ, and this could not have happened in Missouri. Under RSMo. 571.101.9, qualifications to carry a concealed weapon, which are the only sort of records of gun ownership maintained in Missouri, are not open to the public.
I don't think it could have happened in any other state where I've worked as a reporter. It looks like New York has a damaging loophole that needs to be closed, and I hope the NRA is working hard right now to check the laws of the other states to see how many other states there are where a bomb like this could blow up.
I'm posting this at some length because I want gun rights advocates to know that at least some of us in the media understand that what this New York newspaper did was wrong, and can make a rational case from a journalistic perspective why they were wrong. Free Republic gets read in a lot of other places and I hope this gets into people's hands in the NRA and elsewhere who can do some good.
I am normally a huge advocate of public access to government information — the government does, after all, work for the taxpayers, not other way around — and I have a decades-long history of fighting for access to records that some people don't want publicized. Sometimes that led to interesting stories about efforts to sell government property for cut-rate prices to friends, bids given to people who were not the low bidder, prosecutors dropping charges for no good reason when friends are involved, or major embezzlement cases in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars which elected officials tried to cover up via quiet resignations rather than prosecutions.
There are very good reasons why most of what the government does needs to be open to public inspection.
Most, but not all.
Longstanding exceptions exist in most if not all states for legal, personnel and real estate matters. For example, everybody understands that because lawyer-client conversations are confidential, government agencies have the right to get legal advice in a lawsuit without having the other side listen in. Everybody understands that if a city employee is accused of some sort of nonsense, the city council should have the right to keep unfounded accusations from going public, with the caveat that if the person complaining thinks misconduct has been covered up, that person can always sue, which typically gets the closed personnel information out into the public court record. Similar closed records rules apply to schools with minors, to many juvenile court records, to police with pending investigations, and other longstanding legitimate exemptions. Details differ from state to state, but the principle is well-established that some things that government does can, should, or even must remain confidential.
Apart from those unusual cases, I am not used to advocating for more government secrecy, but I need to do so here.
What this newspaper did was **WAY** out of line even though what they did was apparently in compliance with state law in New York. I've been asking repeatedly on professional journalism websites what possible public purpose this article served other than stigmatizing gun owners. So far, nobody has been able to give me any rational public purpose; even some of the nearby news media are annoyed at what this newspaper did.
I've tried to keep an open mind and listen to both sides, but I think it's now become obvious that there **IS** no valid public purpose to having this information public. Many other states, perhaps most other states, do not make such lists public.
New York needs to change its law.
Until the law changes, what the New York newspaper did was legal. They will win any lawsuit against them because they printed public information that was legally available to anyone requesting it.
While it was legal, what the newspaper did was unnecessary, was foolish, has apparently already led to threats against prison guards, and could quite realistically end up getting someone robbed, injured, or killed.
This is an issue which is so egregious that I believe gun rights organizations like the NRA can make common cause with people who don't typically share our views. In a state like New York, winning means convincing Democrats to change their views, and I believe that is quite possible in this case.
One obvious example is victim advocate organizations, which tend to be dominated by liberal feminists. Because a gun is one of the most effective ways for a physically smaller woman to defend herself against unexpected attacks by a current or former boyfriend or husband, there are women who own guns to protect themselves but nobody knew that until now, and as a result of this newspaper's action, those female domestic violence victims have now lost the element of surprise. Some of them already seem to have come forward and they need to get a lot of attention because legislators on the Democratic side of the aisle **WILL** listen to victims of domestic violence.
Another obvious example is inner-city storekeepers and employees, many of whom are black or Hispanic. They may agree with us on very little politically, but getting a black or Hispanic liquor store owner on television explaining why he voted for Obama but is furious that the newspaper outed him as a gun owner could be very useful. There are lots of legal black gun owners who will vote Democrat in every election and will put pressure on their Democratic state legislators to close access to records identifying them as gun owners.
My third suggestion will be harder because people in the media typically have to steer clear of public political activism unless they're in a management role. However, are there some veteran New York crime reporters who are willing to go public, explain that they are gun owners, and say that they believe their personal safety (perhaps because of crime coverage, or specific threats against them) justified their ownership of guns for personal protection? Are there some New York reporters with a stack of newswriting awards for investigative reporting who are willing to stand up and say that there is no valid public purpose for their gun ownership being made public, and maybe add that at an earlier point in their career their lives and the lives of their families were endangered by their reporting, so they needed to have a weapon for self-defense?
News media organizations can be expected to push for all government records and government meetings to be open. I understand that. 99 percent of the time I agree. This is the 1 percent exception, and getting some veteran reporters to testify before the New York legislature could be helpful — especially if they are known and respected by some of the Democratic members of the legislature.
The NRA is a very effective organization. I assume people from the NRA national leadership monitor Free Republic regularly. I very much hope that all of what I'm suggesting has already become part of the NRA’s plans, and if not, that the NRA makes it a high priority to get female domestic violence victims and inner-city minority storeowners to advocate for closing these public records, and gets some New York reporters with a long history of fighting for public access to information who are willing to publicly state that they can find no valid reason for gun ownership records to be public.
In a state like New York, changing the law requires convincing Democrats to change their minds. I think that's doable. This situation is so egregious that some key parts of the usual Democratic coalition may be willing to act reasonably to change the law.
Let me close by saying this. I'm used to being forced to defend the right of my news media colleagues to make wrong, stupid, and even idiotic decisions. The First Amendment was designed to protect stupid and unpopular speech.
I cannot remember any other time in at least two decades that I have called for closing access to public records that are now open. Nobody has been able to give me a public purpose for this information being open to the public, with the sole exception that it might allow the public to report mentally unstable gun owners. Even if that reason were valid, it could be accomplished more effectively by implementing better systems to identify and flag people with mental health issues, and it would have done nothing to stop the Sandy Hook shooting since the shooter apparently stole his mother's guns rather than trying to buy guns himself. It has become obvious that publicizing the list of gun owners has generated actual threats, and poses a real risk to property, person, and even life.
News media organizations need to back off from defending this newspaper. The newspaper was wrong, and unfortunately, they're not backing down. Others in the news media need to stand up and declare publicly that there was no valid public purpose for publicizing the names and addresses of individual gun owners, and doing so put people at real risk for no good reason.
Sooner or later, if nothing is done, there’ll be someone dead as a result of that newspaper's action. Let's get the law changed before that happens.
Why lower yourself to their level?
Because thats the only way we will win. We are getting our butts handed to us big time. It’s not even a contest. We be nice and play by rules and they laugh at us for doing so. They don’t play by rules. And they slaughter us. They want to win by any means possible, and they are doing it. We didn’t beat Japan and Germany in WWII by being nice. We won by sinking to their level. We firebombed German and Japanese cities to kill as many men, women, and children as we could to break their populations spirit. The purpose of our nuclear deterrent is to kill as many innocent men, women, and children as possible if we are attacked with nukes.
Personally I could care less that all these Guards and Police officers names and addresses were made public, they have EVERY RIGHT To be a VICTIM just like the Citizens they are Hell Bent on DISARMING.
Gee...
How many of those cops and guards are ready to take guns from law-abiding citizens if they’re ordered to...
Now they know how the rest of us feel.
Sucks, doesn’t it?
See post 47.
Sympatico, brother.
“..Why lower yourself to their level?...”
Mears, You can’t be serious...you’re joking, right?
But if not, I’ll tell you why -
....Because you DON’T have to be polite to people who want you disarmed, neutered, and dead.
...Because you DON’T have to be polite to people who want to strip you of your most basic Constitutional, civil, and HUMAN RIGHT and leave you at the mercy of thugs with baggy pants or thugs with badges.
...Because you DON’T have to be polite with people who by their actions openly threaten you and your family, expose your family to potential murder and assault, and expect you to roll over and do NOTHING about it.
That clear enough?
MORMON Joseph Smith would take a more direct approach...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.