Skip to comments.Inmates using newspaper's gun owner map to threaten guards, sheriff says (Rockland County)
Posted on 01/04/2013 4:14:10 PM PST by Libloather
click here to read article
Everyone seems to be missing the underlying problem. The govt. should not have any such list in the first place. Where in the Second Amendment does it say that you need a “permit” to own or possess arms? People would do well to remember the phrase “shall not be infringed.”
Thanks for straightening me out,guys.
Not so much “straightening you out” as it is letting you know you’re not alone, friend.
We’re ALL staring at this abyss right now...and it’s no time to “go wobbly” as the Iron Lady (Mrs. Thatcher) so elegantly put it.
“Lowering” ourselves to their level? Hell...I’m for tunneling UNDER their lowest level and caving the damn ground in under their feet, if that’s what it takes. Capisce?
One team, One Fight. They F*** with one of us, they’ll have to deal with ALL of us.
I'd rather be rude and obnoxious (I'm fairly good at that anyway) and get this stopped before my grandchildren are living in a nation in civil war.
However, let's remember as conservatives that not only the Second Amendment but also the First Amendment are in the Bill of Rights for a reason. Free Republic would be an early target of the current administration, as well as of the Clinton Administration years ago, if we didn't have the guarantees of the First Amendment.
The primary remedy for irresponsible actions like what was done by the New York newspaper is to use our free speech rights to argue against them and convince the public that they're wrong. Other steps such as economic boycotts can work as well — that newspaper has at least two local competitors which are getting lots of new readers offended by the gun owner map. Personally, I hope one or both of them decide this is a marketing opportunity, get some major pro-Second Amendment advertisers, and use the internet to start running an effective daily news alternative to their gun-bashing competitor. It would be wonderful if in two or three years the major local newspaper ends up no longer being the current Gannett paper but rather one of the two locally-owned papers, following a successful appeal to community residents angry about the abuse of a Gannett-owned paper which isn't answerable to local readers.
Finally, this is probably the first case I've seen in at least two decades where I would support amending state law to end public access to government records that are now open. Increasing government secrecy is almost never the right answer to anything — we are, after all, the bosses of the government, not the other way around — but in this case, nobody has yet been able to explain to me any valid public purpose for printing that list of gun owners.
Printing that list was a major mistake, it couldn't have happened in my state of Missouri because no comparable gun owner list exists and the concealed carry permit list is specifically closed to the public, and the newspaper is getting the public attacks that it deserves.
Using the First Amendment is the solution to this problem, not destroying a printing press as was done in Nauvoo.
Thanks very much, darrellmaurina. I had not used the link to see what the “Mormon” thing was all about.
Thank you, Onyx.
I think it was NO 'mistake' at all; but a coldly calculated attempt to shore up a faultering business!
NOTHING gets printed with out editorial review and approval.
The local Indianapolis Star is now Gannett owned.
The shift in policy from Conservative to Liberal was swift and distasteful; as the Pulliam's sold out a few years back.
When I state to BUY the media; that's EXACTLY what I mean!
In Illinois our clown girl attorney general was going to make the FOID card holders public, but the adults or what is left of the adult population had a fit that they would be exposed for their hypocracy and so she relented.
Do the local Demonrats have a lot of stock investments in safe-building companies?
The Madigans, one of many Illinois crime families..
Also, there's no question that this article was reviewed in detail by the editors in advance, and possibly by the publisher. Many publishers take a deliberate hands-off approach to news content, however, so I can't say that for sure. Often it's best for publishers to be able to say to angry advertisers that they knew nothing about the article in advance. But if the publisher wasn't involved before the article ran, the publisher and the corporate chain of command definitely are involved now, and they have a crisis on their hands.
I do, however, think that many reporters live in a world which is so isolated from conservatives that the editors may not have understood what kind of uproar this would produce. I've spent a lot of time on professional journalism websites since this article appeared trying to make calm and reasonable arguments that there was no journalistic justification for printing this list, and the general response in public and especially in private comments has been along the line of “You know, we never considered that point of view before.”
I think I have been somewhat effective. This article really did not meet the test of being a compelling public interest, and an excellent case can be made from a women's rights (i.e., liberal) perspective that publishing this article caused direct harm to female victims of domestic violence who were relying on the element of surprise as well as their ownership of a gun for their protection. Those two arguments seem to be quite effective in winning people over who may not agree with conservatives on other issues.
“Groupthink” is more of a problem in the media than deliberate and intentional liberalism. I know one large newsroom in a fairly conservative part of Iowa where the only outspoken conservative is a sports reporter, and that indicates the depth of the problem.
Most people on Free Republic are quite aware of what liberals think. By contrast, many liberals don't even know what conservatives think, let alone understand us.
The result is that liberals sometimes seriously overreach and do things that are really stupid because they don't understand how much anger they will generate from those who disagree with them.
A bigger boat?
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.