Anti-Gun Newspaper Outs Law-Abiding Gun Owners

[frazod]

If this is buried somewhere, I didn't see it. Don't really give a shit if it's a repost, either.

http://www.lohud.com/usatoday/article/1791507

N.Y. newspaper's gun-owner database draws criticism

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. -- Thousands of people have taken to their computers and phones in rage after The Journal News posted an online database of local gun-permit holders.

The database, legally obtained from the County Clerks' Offices through a Freedom of Information Act request made after the shootings in Sandy Hook, Conn., that left 20 children and eight adults dead, has been called irresponsible, dangerous and leaning toward intimidation by online pundits.

Social media played a big part in the exponential spread of the story, whose map has been recommended more than 20,000 times. Two Facebo

Numerous additional comments relating to the gun-permit map have appeared on posts in other unrelated articles. More than a dozen more people sent private messages via Facebook objecting to the map. The overwhelming majority of comments strongly object to the article.ok posts linking to the article on Sunday garnered 346 comments as of Tuesday evening. That's in addition to 167 comments posted directly to Facebook.com/LoHud since the article was published.

The database also was mentioned in the Drudge Report, Memorandum.com, Breitbart.com, Thegatewaypundit.com, Instapundit, iOwnTheWorld.com and UrbanGrounds, along with Yahoo, ABC News and Fox News, among others.

More than 500 comments -- on both sides of the debate -- accompanied an article on CNN.com Tuesday.

The Journal News is owned by Gannett Co. Inc., which is also the parent company of USA TODAY.

Hundreds of callers have complained, claiming publication of the database put their safety at risk or violated their privacy. Others claimed publication was illegal. Many of the callers were vitriolic and some threatened members of the newspaper staff.

"New York residents have the right to own guns with a permit and they also have a right to access public information," said Janet Hasson, president and publisher of The Journal News Media Group.

Robert Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government and an expert in the state's Freedom of Information law, has said all government records and data are presumed public unless a specific statute bars their release. Names and addresses are specifically deemed public records, he said.

This is not the first time The Journal News has been criticized for publishing information about gun permits. A similar article in 2006 received similar responses, although social media did not play as large a part in the spread of the article or of the complaints.

"We knew publication of the database would be controversial, but we felt sharing as much information as we could about gun ownership in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings," said CynDee Royle, editor and vice president/news.

"People are concerned about who owns guns and how many of them there are in their neighborhoods," she said. "Our Freedom of Information request also sought specifics on how many and what types of weapons people owned. That portion of the request was denied."

Scott F. Williams, 41, of Haddon Heights, N.J., who served in the Marines as a rifleman, was one of the very few callers who agreed to identify themselves and comment on why they called.

"This is what I see," he said. "It's all in the context of the shootings in Newtown ... it gets us all talking about gun control. That people are at a heightened concern makes sense to me. I am a gun owner and a pro-Second-Amendment (person). I try to be rational." He called the newspaper's decision to link to the database "highly Orwellian."

"The implications are mind-boggling," he said. "It's as if gun owners are sex offenders (and) to own a handgun risks exposure as if one is a sex offender. It's, in my mind, crazy."

*****

Welcome to the Peoples Republik of New York, kids. Frankly, I don't know what's worse - the fact that this ****ing liberal rag actually did this, or the fact that some dumbass government official felt it was appropriate to release the information. Outing law abiding citizens guilty of nothing but exercising their constitutional rights - what a disgusting, despicable, dangerous abuse of power and betrayal of the public trust. Sane people don't advertise to their neighbors that they own guns - they don't flash them in the window, they don't have GUNS HERE INQUIRE WITHIN signs in their yards. Just like conceal carry, anonymity is important here. Now any punk who clicks on this site will know where they can go steal a gun. It essentially rings the dinner bell for them - just find a remote house on this list, and if nobody's home, break in and start looking. I guess if these gun owners didn't have alarm systems before, they'd better get one now. And so much for leaving your pistol in the nightstand - now you'll need an expensive safe. Thank God most thieving scumbags who'd steal guns don't read the news (or anything else), but surely somebody's going to take advantage of this, and when it happens, I sure as hell hope these ****ing vermin are held accountable for their irresponsible actions.

If my name and address was on this list..... well, my reaction sure as **** wouldn't be a sternly-worded e-mail.

But of course, these vile twats will hide behind the First Amendment. Gotta love people shitting on Constitution and then hiding behind it when the outrage hits.

And that idiot Direckshun had the balls to complain about the money the NRA raises, when the opposition has the ability to pull crap like this.

[lostcause]

Originally Posted by frazod

Those of us who aren't on ****ing welfare leave our homes occasionally - you know, jobs and such. When that happens, and nobody's home, well, a smart person could figure it out. I guess I'll write it off as one of life's great mysteries for you.

So you leave your gun on the kitchen counter when you go to work? If having a gun at home no longer makes you safer, then why have a gun?

Ultimately, an agreement was made when the person got a gun permit - they voluntarily gave up their right to privacy about that fact. This is not some new relevation that the newspaper uncovered, it's been perfectly accessible for decades. I understand you fear and distrust the media, but this is not a violation of the public's interest here.

[BucEyedPea]

Doesn't this defeat the purpose of having a concealed weapon? ( if they're concealed in the state discussed)

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

/RWNJ

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

More ad hominems—your specialty.

I'm not saying I'm not good at it, but specialty is a bit much. My pallette has many colors. But I'm a little disappointed you didn't go with "STRAWMAN" since I wasn't referring to any one specific RWNJ.

[2bikemike]

How dare any of you get irritated at the media for excercising their first ammendment right. They would never rail against your 2nd!

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Charge them as being accessories to the crime.

1st Amendment hater. You're unbelievable.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I'm not saying I'm not good at it, but specialty is a bit much. My pallette has many colors. But I'm a little disappointed you didn't go with "STRAWMAN" since I wasn't referring to any one specific RWNJ.

I was not saying you were good at it. You're not...it's what you post nearly exclusively and mostly with the overuse of some variety of the word "nut." Nothing original and few colors in that palette. Nothing original even.

Strawman is another one of yours, when you're not lying, just not as often as ad hominems which are your specialty.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

1st Amendment hater. You're unbelievable.

Do you need Hooked on Phonics?

Post #57

BEP: Turn your sarcasm meter on.

Oh and you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater either.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by lostcause

So you leave your gun on the kitchen counter when you go to work? If having a gun at home no longer makes you safer, then why have a gun?

Ultimately, an agreement was made when the person got a gun permit - they voluntarily gave up their right to privacy about that fact. This is not some new relevation that the newspaper uncovered, it's been perfectly accessible for decades. I understand you fear and distrust the media, but this is not a violation of the public's interest here.

Lostcause is a great name for you.

If a criminal is looking for a gun to steal, what would direct him toward a gun owner's house specifically? Absolutely nothing. Looks just like every other house on the street. But if some liberal media **** published the guy's name and address on an interactive map, suddenly, HEY, THIS HOUSE WAS ON THE LIST - THEY'VE GOT GUNS. Ring the doorbell, see if he's home. No answer - well, let's break in. Maybe they find the guns, maybe they don't. But they still break in, do damage, and certainly take other things along the way. All because this law-abiding citizen, exercising his constitutional rights, was publicly outed by this douchy liberal rag.

It's hard to imagine there are people out there so ****ing stupid as to not have a problem with this.

[lostcause]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Do you need Hooked on Phonics?

Post #57



Oh and you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater either.

Yes you can.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Do you need Hooked on Phonics?

ad hominem

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by lostcause

Yes you can.

Not falsely because it creates a "clear and present danger."

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

ad hominem

back at ya'! I said I was giving you your own medicine back.

Would you have preferred "strawman" again? Because that's what it really was.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

1st Amendment hater. You're unbelievable.

It's abused far more often than the Second.

The assholes who posted the map. News networks dedicated to spreading government propaganda and little else. Scum like Fred Phelps. Paparazzi. If any amendment needs a ****ing overhaul, it's this one.

[lostcause]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Not falsely because it creates a "clear and present danger."

Well, not falsely, no. That was the basis of Holmes decision in Schenck.


The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

The possibility of breaking and entering into a house where the perp would have reason to believe the home owner had guns at his/her disposal is not a substantive evil. The newspaper did not create a clear and present danger in publicizing who had gun permits. Forbes tells us who the richest people in the world are and that would seem to cause a case for breaking and entering, yet its still legal and not despicable or verminous.

[lostcause]

Originally Posted by frazod

It's abused far more often than the Second.

The assholes who posted the map. News networks dedicated to spreading government propaganda and little else. Scum like Fred Phelps. Paparazzi. If any amendment needs a ****ing overhaul, it's this one.

I think you're actually foaming at the mouth now.