"The names of permit holders are available from NYPD with Freedom of Information Law request/Journalists receive death threats within an hour of publishing list on site."
Gawker seeks traffic. Stirs up outrage. (Link doesn't go to Gawker.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
169 comments:
We need a similar list of MDs performing abortions, and women who've had them.
The Chicago/lefty way, which includes class and race divisiveness, is hurtling us toward a prolonged civil conflict, if not outright civil war.
They're pitting brother against brother, and things have already gotten very very ugly. Violence seems in the offing.
Hard to believe that's not in the plan, given the huge amount of ammo the feds have been buying in the last four years.
Gawker also publishes addresses of those with restraining orders trying to avoid abusive ex-husbands, who now know addresses.
Gawker can't think about that though. That would be like, hard.
By the way, it is quite clear leftists such as those at Gawker are against gun ownership in any manner, shape, or form.
Because that list is people with handgun permits. Not "assault rifles"
Oh and again, the use of semi-automatic "assault rifles" in US homicides is statistically insignificant. (rifles of any type account for only a fraction of homicides in the United States — of 12,664 murder victims last year, 323 were killed with rifles)
So of course they need to be banned.
This will certainly ease the fears of people who are convinced that gun registration leads to confiscation.
I am convinced we are about to experience a wave of assassinations, of politicians, journalists, actors and even some professors. It might escalate to near civil and race war.
I remember the 60s. They were Hell. I fear they are coming back. I am really, really afraid for all Americans.
Sow the wind; reap the whirlwind.
When Gawker gets around to publishing the names of all unlicensed gun owners in New York City, then they'll have a story.
I predict a lot of law-abiding folks are going to "sell" their guns to 'friends' (no records yet required). Black-market purchases will become far more common, with the influx from China-to-Mexico.
Unregistered guns will increase.
The lefty underpants gnomes version of politics:
"Step 1: Publish gun owner's names
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Political victory!
Yes, I understand this is supposed to be a sort of intimidation tactic. Show who has an unpopular item, and "out" them to the public.
But really, the tactic only works if you allow it to have power over you. Personally, I'm sort of flabbergasted that gun owners don't subvert this and turn it around to take it's supposed influence away. "Yes, I unabashedly own a firearm. Rob me at your peril." Doing that would nullify any objective Gawker had in publishing those names.
It's only a problem because there's a perceived shame in owning a gun. That's really what has to change here; there should be none of that.
Right on cue:
"The door opened up quick and three guys came in," recalled Michaud. "That's when the guys said, 'You go back there, I'll take care of him.'"
Michaud told KRDO Newschannel 13 that he keeps a .357 pistol close to him because of crime around his apartment complex on East St. Vrain Street near Prairie Avenue. He said he put the gun to use before the intruders could hurt or rob him.
"There was one (man) by the door," Michaud said. "I put a bullet in his chest. I was going to shoot the other one in the chest, but the one who was closest to me hit my arm and the gun went off and hit him in his leg."
The third man ran out the door and Michaud said he knew not to try shooting him after he left the apartment.
No word yet if the intruders died.
Why license a gun, then?
This is a classic definition of perversion... of politics, of government.
I'm a Democrat, but my people are sinking deeper and deeper into a fantasy ideology.
What to do about it???
Maybe some boy reporter could publish a list of all people in New York City with a license of any kind. Then we could cross-index for the classifieds.
Acupuncturist with a handgun seeks milk inspector with same.
Tibore, the problem is that you can never leave your house, say, to go on vacation, because then thieves know which houses have guns to steal.
The little pussy from Gawker was whining on Twitter:
John Cook @johnjcook
People are tweeting my address. I didn't publish anyone's address.
Awww.........
"And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."
We're getting closer to the last straw.
If I lived in a blue state, I'd be trying to find a way to get out of it.
While I don't have a Dawg in this fight, I gotta agree with Pogo that I can't see what the motive is for this attack on registered gun owners.
It's supposed to accomplish what?
This "outing" tactic started, of course, with exposing anybody who preferred to keep their sexual identity private.
Make of that what you will.
Apparently it is fine to publish names and addresses of Recall signers, but this is just over the line.
I do not understand that inconsistency.
Then again, the hypocrisy is always thick here.
Deja vu all over again.
Mark said...
Apparently it is fine to publish names and addresses of Recall signers, but this is just over the line
Except nobody "published" any "names and addresses of Recall signers"
But thanks for participating.
used to enjoy the snark of gawker family of sites, but last intentional visit and log-off yesterday.
doing the list is dumb enough, but the title called all permit holders "assholes". WTH?
bye gawker.
used to enjoy the snark of gawker family of sites, but last intentional visit and log-off yesterday.
doing the list is dumb enough, but the title called all permit holders "assholes". WTH?
bye gawker.
Do the journalist at Gawker and others on the left understand that the unlikely, but possible coming revolution might have a French flavor. God forbid, there might be someone out there making lists not government generated and not accessible through an FOIA request.
For what it's worth, my lefty FB correspondents are always carrying on about how gun ownership is a symptom of some sort of sexual perversion or "fetish" that indicates something... what I don't know... but the intimation is that this makes the gun owner a probable perp of some sort of crime.
This ranks up there with the SSM lobby publishing peoples names that had signed the Prop 8 petition in CA some time ago. It's just public shaming, or the attempt to shame, people who might be engaged in "un-PC" activities.
The liberal mind is scandalized by those who would defend themselves. And why? Because to defend yourself privileges your life over the life of an other, be that other a mugger a thief a rapist, doesn't matter. Yes, the worshippers of absolute equality are that insane.
Stood a flag line recently with the Patriot Guard Riders. One of the ladies who stood with us lost her son in Afghanistan a year ago and she consoled the wife of the fallen Gulf War Veteran. As the ashes were being placed in the wall a car drove by and an occupant shouted an obscenity at the assembled parishioners. Reminded many of us of the abuse we endured during the Viet Nam war coming and going from Travis AFB. Some things never change as the grandchildren of the lefties carry on the tradition of disrespect and anarchy.
While I don't have a Dawg in this fight, I gotta agree with Pogo that I can't see what the motive is for this attack on registered gun owners.
Why treat it like it's an attack? Why not just look at it like they're simply publishing the public record, no big deal. Sometimes you just empower your enemies by getting all het up over what they do. Haven't they always wanted empowerment?
I predict a lot of law-abiding folks are going to "sell" their guns to 'friends' (no records yet required). Black-market purchases will become far more common, with the influx from China-to-Mexico.
Last night, I was hearing Dem. Gov. Hickenduper here in CO lamenting about just this point, and suggesting that this loophole of guns sold to friends (and presumably family) was in need of closing.
Used to think that this guy was almost OK as a Dem. governor, having actually had a real job outside government and having built a successful business on his own. But, now having second thoughts - the Dems smelling blood are circling here and getting ready to move in.
I've told everyone that I know that I have a concealed carry permit.
Do the journalist at Gawker
To paraphrase Inigo Montoya,
"We keep using that word "journalist", I do not think we know what it means"
Jay, I was able to search my street for all recall singers with the online database.
I fail to see how this is different, in fact it might be better coded/controlled than the mess the Verify the Recall people published and is still online a year later (recall is over, why the need to publish names still?).
Iverifytherecall.com
Sorry Jay, you lose.
phx said...
Why treat it like it's an attack? Why not just look at it like they're simply publishing the public record, no big deal.
Why not ask yourself what is the purpose of publishing this?
By the way stupid shit, I guess you missed this:
Inmates at the Rockland County jail are taunting corrections officers by saying they know the guards' home addresses -- information they got from the list published by Westchester-based newspaper, Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco said.
"Since about 9:30 this morning, I've been in a meeting with my corrections officers and their unions. They have inmates coming up to them and telling them exactly where they live. That's not acceptable to me," Falco said at a news conference Friday morning in New City, where local leaders condemned the list.
Falco, along with other supporting police chiefs and county legislators, wants the paper to remove the information from its website.
"It's hurting law enforcement as a whole and it's directly affecting our ability to do our jobs," Falco said. "And then when we leave our jobs, we're going to have to defend our jobs and that's going to make for a very serious incident that's going to happen someplace in this county."
No big deal!
Again, can't think about that though. That would be like, hard.
Mark said...
I fail to see how this is different
Of course you do.
I mean, a searchable database is like totally the same as a newspaper article published in print and online.
Exactly the same.
Mark said...
Jay, I was able to search my street for all recall singers with the online database.
Good for you.
And if I don't know you name, I would find you how _____ again?
The fact that you're equating the two is making you look pretty fucking stupid.
AllenS. I told my friends and acquaintainces the same thing. Because I do.
It gets worse.
There are exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act.
But the govt agency receiving the FOIA request has to invoke the exemption.
Meaning, the govt official could refuse to provide the information on firearm registry under exemption 6 or 7, at the very least.
(http://www.sec.gov/foia/nfoia.htm)
But the govt officials chose not to.
Since Zero first was elected I have not been able to go to the range on weekends because there are TOO MANY PEOPLE shooting, practicing and purchasing.
Since his re-election, and now out-of-the-closet views on gun control, there is now a line out the doors on weekdays too. Damn that man. How is Tank going to practice?
On the radio today, "Gun Safety Groups ..." No. They figured out that people don't want control, so now the confiscators are calling themselves "Safety Groups." When you hear the phrase Gun Safety Groups, you know they are talking about coming into your house and taking your firearms away.
I mean, a searchable database is like totally the same as a newspaper article published in print and online
Newspapers *have*, on several occasions, printed names of people that signed recall petitions.
phx said...
Why treat it like it's an attack? Why not just look at it like they're simply publishing the public record, no big deal.
Woman outed by gun owner map had a gun because "I had been married to a man who attempted to strangle me...Oh my gosh, he can find me."
No big deal!
garage mahal said...
Newspapers *have*, on several occasions, printed names of people that signed recall petitions.
Complete & utter bullshit.
Note: a name is not an address you fucking moron.
If I lived in a blue state, I'd be trying to find a way to get out of it.
The trouble with former blue-staters moving to red states is that they bring their stupid voting patterns with them, not realizing that the reason why their former residence is such a hell-hole of high taxes and crap services is because they voted Democrat.
Note: a name is not an address you fucking moron.
What? Gawker didn't publish addresses, Iverifytherecall *did* make available over a million names and addresses.
Of people that signed recalls against Republicans that is. They didn't get around to entering in names/addresses of people that signed recalls against Democrats. Quelle surprise.
Yeah, I'm not really comfortable with people who signed the recalls getting their names published, either.
But what a rickety recall system you have there, when there was no pre-set method of verifying the names to begin with. How was fraud to be detected?
I would be hurt to see my name published on a list of "assholes" for any reason.
Is that a hate crime? To label a bunch of people assholes?
What would be interesting would be for someone to go through the permits and see how many of them are former cops, have contributed to the Mayor's campaigns, etc. Keep in mind here that NYC is not like most of the country. NYC has some of the most draconian gun laws in the country, and unrestricted concealed carry permits are apparently quite hard to obtain, unless you are politically connected or former police.
One problem though with disclosing all gun permits in NYC is that all guns in the city must be registered with the city. This, of course, includes all guns that somehow come into the city inadvertently or for even minutes (including if you are flying through NYC airports and your next flight gets canceled there). No exceptions for police from other jurisdictions (NJ State Police have facilities right outside NYC for just this purpose). Most permits are restricted to the home, with special limited permits for target practice and work or business, etc. You apparently have to go downtown to the main police station, give fingerprints, etc. for every gun bought. One problem with all this is that thieves would know that the guns are in the houses in almost all cases, and not on the person of those owning them, because otherwise, they would be illegal.
I think though that a combination of this draconian registration, along with publication of those who do register their guns, is going to cause even more gun transactions in NYC to go underground. Pop over the NJ, pick one up, and forget to register it in NYC, that sort of thing. Except that a lot of the middle class there is communitarian/collectivist by nature, which explains why they continue to live in such a place. Maybe.
Can we post lists of every library member who borrowed The Story of O, or Naked Lunch, or Das Kapital, or The Anarchist's Cookbook? Can we post on everybody treated for STDs? Everybody late on their taxes?
Golden Rule, man. If you wouldn't want your info posted, why post theirs? The only good answer is that they are the enemy, or they are subhuman, second-class citizens, etc.
I too foresee a spate of killing coming on. I wonder to what extent I may safely and legally cheer. The interesting question is, will the Gawkers, the Journal-Newses, the NYTs, New Yorkers, Reuterses, be stand-up and courageous like the journal in Russia and Mexico, or will they fold like cheap cameras?
"Referring to the earlier piece in the Journal News, one commenter wrote: 'The journal posted my address and name for my gun ownership. My past stalker saw this. I haven't heard from him in two years, because I disappeared.
'Now he is back and calling me......thanks to people like you bunch of a*******, looks like I will have to protect myself from becoming a murder victim. Gracias.'"
Whoops.
Now that we have this list of registered owners it's much easier to identify NYC public figures who are attempting to deny the rights of others while they exercise their own.
"It's just public shaming, or the attempt to shame, people who might be engaged in "un-PC" activities."
The context makes this more sinister than just attempted public shaming. Gawker knows perfectly well that this places innocent people in danger, they just don't care. The people on the list are all "assholes" (their words) who they've decided are unworthy of sharing their city. When you purge the undesirables there's gonna be some collateral damage.
But what a rickety recall system you have there, when there was no pre-set method of verifying the names to begin with
There was a pre-set method and virtually no fakes were found. Walker didn't challenge one signature. And as I said yesterday, publishing names of gun owners is a ridiculous invasion of privacy.
This is a public service so that pussy ass neighbors will know who to call when their life is in danger. If you have a guy breaking in your house, are you gonna call 911? Hold please.
phx said "Sometimes you just empower your enemies by getting all het up over what they do. Haven't they always wanted empowerment?"
That's a nice twist. Are we in the lobby after a presser?
This is serious stuff, phx. Publish a list of gun-owners, and you create a map of soft targets, stolen-gun targets, and hard targets that you might have to attack more forcefully. Does this seem like a good idea? Remember the story of how Harry Houdini advertised that he could take anyone's punch to the gut, and someone did it without asking, and it killed him?
What if one could get a list of food-stamp recipients with a FOIA order? Would it be ethical and moral to publish such a list?
How about rape accusers? I'm agnostic on that one, but newspapers studiously avoid publishing names. Why? Someone in NY owns a gun legally, and they publish his name and address. Someone elsewhere accuses someone of rape, and though they print the name and picture of the accused, they don't name the accuser.
re Pogo earlier -- it occurred to me the other day that the elites (and I don't mean the "rich") in the enclaves of the northeast, Chicago, West Coast are setting up a Hunger Games sort of thing. Not the killngs, per se, but the distrust of the different "Divisions."
Gun owners versus gun non-owners, blacks versus whites, whites versus hispanics, "rich" versus middle class, "poor" versus everyone else, urban versus rural, public versus private sector, et al.
The goal is to keep the various parts and groups of Americans divided. If we are divided, we have less power (and energy) to confront, condemn, reject and dispell the insideous evil being perpetuated by the 70s radical mindset of the coasts and the Chicago underbelly.
We have lived elsewhere in the world. We have international friends. There are many cool places in the world.
There is absolutely no place in the world like th United States of America. We should hit ourselves over the head with 2x4s and get to work about this -- togther -- to preserve the republic and return to the limited government of the US Constitution.
And pray.
This is why having receiver schematics, a few power tools, and some not-legally-weapons cast metal blocks laying around is a good idea. Anyone who didn't realize that any form of registration would eventually be a tool for coercion/intimidation is a fool.
A handgun is one of most valuable items a burglar hopes to find in a house. This is like publishing the addresses of everyone with expensive jewelry at home. I think lawsuits are in order.
@Pogo: You're missing my point. The reason the Gawker outing is supposedly powerful is because a stigma is being plasted onto gun ownership, not because it gives thieves information to act on. Licensed gun ownership being supposedly shameful should be the furthest thing from the truth. Being a licensed gun owner is supposed to show responsibility, and isn't supposed to be something that's never mentioned in public.
The entire point is to disarm the whole "outing" notion with a response demonstrating it has no real power. The whole idea is to let people know that gun ownership is far from being something to be ashamed of. If Gawker or anyone else opposed to gun ownership "outs" you, a good defense is to go on the offense and subvert the intent by saying "Yes, and I'm proud of it". That's what I'm getting at.
Does garage mahal ever have any other arguments than Tu Quoque?
Christ almighty, stay on the fucking topic and give a useful opinion on this matter for once.
@Tibore
I know. Bagoh said what I was concerned about, and better:
"A handgun is one of most valuable items a burglar hopes to find in a house. This is like publishing the addresses of everyone with expensive jewelry at home. I think lawsuits are in order."
A handgun is one of most valuable items a burglar hopes to find..."
Especially when its street price isn't 10 cents on the dollar like for the other items in the home.
Above - I forget who - Meaning, the govt official could refuse to provide the information on firearm registry under exemption 6 or 7, at the very least.
(http://www.sec.gov/foia/nfoia.htm)
But the govt officials chose not to.
More power to the Putnam County, NY clerk who refused the request from newspaper-which-shall-remain-unnamed.(We have relatives in Putnam County.)
junyo, a very long time ago while still in grade school the state where I lived began requiring registration. A gun owner was discussing that with my parents (who are against guns altogether) and none of them saw any problem with merely registering guns. I said, "I do." Guns scare me too but I still saw the thin edge of the wedge and that was before a lot of these assault weapon looking things that scare the piss out of Democrats and me too appeared on the scene.
Tibore and Pogo: I wonder whether people will start acquiring fake gun licenses. That is: get the license, but don't buy the gun. So get on the map as a hard target, thus possibly diverting some marauders, but don't get the hardware, thus keeping down the flow of illicit guns.
Christ almighty, stay on the fucking topic and give a useful opinion on this matter for once
I corrected misinformation.
You struggle with the application of your principles. I don't.
It was wronfg in so many ways -- a place to obtain an illegal weapon unsecured by bars, the addresses of the victims of violence hiding or protecting themselves, the unprotected ...
As for the latter I was interested in a glance at a map on one of the sites (I did not gio to the unnamed newspaper's site) and happened to notice my hometown ... dang ... there weren't many licensed guns in the town at all. If I were a serious theif ... I would definitely cruise those back roads.
And since we're outing today -- I have a CCW. I just don't want my name in the paper, if you don't mind. It isn't anyone's business. Of course, in my small neighborhood of say 9 homes -- I would guess that more than half of us have firearms.
Coyotes, you know. ;-)
Chicago after Richard J. Daley died had multiple gun registrations over a couple year period. I complied with them the four(?) times they asked. It was a rope-a-dope. For the final registration, I never received anything back confirming the guns registered, and since the final deadline had passed I knew enough not to inquire--that would only be a "confession" that I had unregisitered guns about. I expect the same for the new program the Dems are proposing.
Btw, Australian gun confiscation began with a national registration program. Juts a short while from when that ended, they started their required gun-turn-in program. The registrations made that simple--if you didn't turn in what you said you had, they came for you. Massive fines (think luxury car territory) made a lot of people just say "fuck it" and comply. But when the new motorcycle gangs are caught with illegal guns today in Australia, judges there fine them minor amounts like $250 Aussie. Go figure.
Wouldn't a list of law-breaking unlicensed gun owners be more useful?
Shouting Thomas said...
While I don't have a Dawg in this fight, I gotta agree with Pogo that I can't see what the motive is for this attack on registered gun owners.
It's supposed to accomplish what?
The purpose is to encourage the liberals in your community to use social pressure - including shunning your children - to enforce their policy preferences.
While the map, itself, is only showing information, this seems like more of Rorschach test than anything else. Why choose to see it as an ‘attack’. What’s that about? A couple others have said, own it. You’re just empowering the other side. If lawfully owning one is such a great thing, use this to convince the others that it is. The violent reactions to this is very unsettling and not helpful to your cause.
re Pogo earlier -- it occurred to me the other day that the elites (and I don't mean the "rich") in the enclaves of the northeast, Chicago, West Coast are setting up a Hunger Games sort of thing. Not the killngs, per se, but the distrust of the different "Divisions."
Note also that the one place that has not really seen the recession, but rather has benefited from it is Washington, D.C. Much of the rest of the country is suffering, but they are skimming the cream off that 25% of GDP now appropriated by the federal government and living quite well.
@Pogo, and others:
That still doesn't matter. You can address that problem with a gun safe and decent security on your home. And yes, I understand that "no security is foolproof"; the idea is deterrence, which would make softer targets (illegal gun owners i.e. criminals, for example) more attractive to gun thieves. You can't protect yourself against injury from car wrecks too, but that doesn't stop you from addressing the large percentage of the problem with seat belts and airbags. Ditto targeted gun theft.
Plus, if you're licensed to carry, you'll have your weapon with you when you leave home anyway.
On top of all of that, you're all missing the point here: The information published is available to the public anyway. Thieves could've gotten it all in some other way had they wanted to, and simply leaving it unpublished is at best security by obscurity, which is no security at all.
Again, what's the big deal here? Everyone's giving Gawker too much power by acting as though their act actually has the power to actually accomplish anything. Take away that power and the problem disappears. You want a publishing entity - even a web publishing entity - to not touch a topic? Make it unpopular and unremarkable enough so that no one gives them page hits. Make it so that a list of gun license holders is about as interesting as a list of license plate recipients. Do that, and the issue is declawed. And that's accomplished by not thinking that the idea of publishing public information is something worth addressing. We don't have issue with publishing death notices, and that's a very well known resource for property thieves. Why should gun license ownership be any different? Treating it as though it is does nothing but help forward Gawker's agenda. And that's what I've been getting at this whole time: Nullifying Gawker's anti-gun agenda. Crying out that they should be sued or acting as though they did something wrong doesn't help that.
Wouldn't a list of law-breaking unlicensed gun owners be more useful?
No, because the primary purpose, I suspect, of the lists is shaming and the law-breaking unlicensed gun owners aren't affected by this. Also, of course, that list is impossible to obtain, since, by definition, their guns are unlicensed, and thereby not officially known by the government.
Could your home be confiscated after they ban guns? Absolutely. They take all property in drug possession cases--or can--cars, boats, homes. Are you going to risk that? Is that Obama's debt fix?
And just think of the employment potential of the new Asset Seizure Army? And the government already has the billions of rounds of ammunition that have purchased over the last four years waiting to make it all happen.
phx said...
Why treat it like it's an attack? Why not just look at it like they're simply publishing the public record, no big deal.
Um, the very first comment at the Gawker article:
The journal posted my address and name for my gun ownership. My past stalker saw this. I haven't heard from him in two years, because I disappeared. Now he is back and calling me......thanks to people like you bunch of assholes, looks like I will have to protect myself from becoming a murder victim. Gracias.
No big deal!
Idiot.
garage mahal said...
What? Gawker didn't publish addresses,
Who said Gawker did, clown?
garage mahal said...
Newspapers *have*, on several occasions, printed names of people that signed recall petitions.
Give me the name of one newspaper that did that.
I wish media outlets wouldn't do this, and I also wish death threats--of all the counterproductive reactions on the part of gun-rights/owners supporters! (assuming, of course, that the threats are coming from actual gun owners, which, who knows?--weren't part of the push back. I think both are a stupid, dangerous way to play the advocacy game. Add this to the list of ongoing political fights that are just disgusting me and wearing me out. (FTR, we are legal gun owners.)
Would someone please cross-reference this list with Democratic donors (can be found on Newsmeat.com or Opensecrets.org)?
Give me the name of one newspaper that did that.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, several times. It was even posted/discussed here.
Garage, you are thinking of when the names of all local teachers who signed the recall were published in the Janesville newspaper I bet. Not sure they had the addresses on there, but I thought they had the salary information.
Maybe that was a different hit piece on recall signers.
Sorry gun owners, but I fail to have sympathy. I didn't hear any support last year ... Privacy is gone today, buck up like the rest of us have.
The whole "outing" phenomenon is childish. I don't see a dime's worth of difference between it and say "tagging." Both are in your face crys for attention. Unfortunately, the consequences differ tremendously.
Prolonged adolescence. People just don't grow-up anymore, particularly those drawn to occupations like "journalist."
I've long believed that gun registration wasn't such a bad idea. But this stuff has turned me against it. I'm a non-gun owner, and really prefer to remain that way. But one thing that allows me to be comfortable being a non-gun owner is that criminals cannot *know* who the gun owners are.
I didn't hear any support last year ... Privacy is gone today, buck up like the rest of us have.
Support for what, Mark? This kind of comment is typical of you liberals. If you're miserable because you didn't get your way, then everyone else should be. Reminds me of my niece when she was 5 years old.
All that aside - I think it's wrong to publish gun owners' names. I thought it was wrong for the gay nazis to post the Prop 8 contributors' personal information as well. I think it's wrong to punish Target stores for their owners' views on gay marriage.
I also think it's wrong to out the Walker recall signers. But let me be honest here: the left is always more apt to out people whom they disagree with than the right. So Mark, if you're looking for hypocrisy, look in the mirror.
Mark said, Privacy is gone today...
Except when it is an emanation from a penumbra.
The only truth to take away from all of this is... this information should not be compiled and stored by government, period.
Clearly, the state can not be trusted to treat this information responsibly.
Clearly, any previous understanding that gun registration and permitting is a "reasonable" compromise was a false understanding.
Now we know better.
Now we know that there really aren't things that we can all agree on to make streets safer and keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people by reporting ourselves to the state and submit to background checks and in any other way partner with the state in order to exercise our 2nd Am. rights.
@Chip Ahoy "Guns scare me too but I still saw the thin edge of the wedge and that was before a lot of these assault weapon looking things that scare the piss out of Democrats and me too appeared on the scene."
What I find even more hilarious is how little our 'betters' seem to understand about how guns function in the real world. My old Winchester 1300 shotgun is nice and wood covered and friendly looking. It's also the fastest way to get lead into a room outside of a sub-machine gun. My CCW is a small, 7 shot pistol, that I regularly carry out and about in hippie-land, with no one the wiser that they're inches from my 'magical murder machine'and 20+ rounds of Hornady hollow points - apparently defective since I've somehow never managed to kill anyone. I'm a lot more potentially lethal with either of those things, either because of the effectiveness of the weapon or the ease of concealment and thus the ability to gain access, than I am with my "assault" rifle (walking outside with the rifle in plain view will get me a new police buddy, quick, fast, and in a hurry - and I live in a gun friendly state) yet the least practically deadly weapon I own is the one they're most hot and bothered over. And they don't understand once you let me know that the registration will actively be used to harm/intimidate me, I have every incentive to avoid and obviate that registration. NYC has made firearm permits incredibly (unconstitutionally) difficult to obtain, and for every one out there NYPD estimates 4 or 5 non-registered ones. Gawker I suspect, just caused that disparity to increase.
I can find no evidence that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published a list of those who signed the recall petition. When did this happen? On what date did they publish this information?
Please don't give me any democratic underground or other left wing bullshit links. Tell me when they published this list.
I've told everyone that I know that I have a concealed carry permit.
Ditto.
Why not print or post a list of the names and addresses of convicted felons?
Nah...that'd require the conclusion that criminals commit crimes and they might live near you. Too much challenege for a journalist to think it through.
garage mahal said...
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, several times
Funny how you can't provide a link.
Let's see Gawker publish the names of all the GAY people in Gotham and what fetishes they're into and what diseases they have.
Or maybe all the Moslems.
PS Waiting for a rash of Bernhard Goetz episodes.
Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic and hilarious if a few of the "people" at Gawker got killed in a knife attack?
Or perhaps a bomb could go off at the Gawker offices?
Because it wouldn't be a gun!
Note: I am not encouraging anyone to do this. Just saying it would make me smile if I heard it "randomly" happened. Sort of like the way I smiled when that whore who worked for the Onion A.V. club got beat down by a group of Obama voters in a flash mob.
Enjoy the decline into full-throated fascism, bitches! Remember, you asked for it!
whores,
Not sure who you're ranting at, but most of the commenters here DID NOT ask for it.
You're not persuading anyone with your childish trolling.
P.S.: Garbage is lying, as he always does. This is leftism 101: the Big Lie. Their hero, Hitler, did it so well, and they all follow suit.
@I Callahan:
I'm merely an anti-leftisit who's done playing nice with the left, and wants to start treating them the way they treat us.
Punch back twice as hard, bitches!
This just might lead to interstate traffic stops. Cops punching in your license plate to see if you own a gun in another state and checking to see if it's in your car.
Time to learn from history.
Tibore asks for "decent security on your home" - but I have ground floor accessible windows on all sides of my home. Do I really have to put bars on them to meet this criterion?
And then continues, "Plus, if you're licensed to carry, you'll have your weapon with you when you leave home anyway." Many (most?) CCW licensees own more than one weapon. So this is another oversimplification.
Dems took the guns away from freed slaves, are we surprised?
I suspect a lot of registered guns will be reported "lost" or "stolen" this year.And (un expectedly) 'found" in the case of an emergancy
Gawker: Journalism according to Leninists that deny it all.
Mark and garage,
You have utterly failed to demonstrate how publishing names and addresses of recall signers is the same as publishing the names and addresses of gun owners.
Has a recall petition ever been the target of theft?
Has a recall petition ever been used to defend someone from a home invasion?
If you are planning on burglarizing the home of someone who signed a recall petition, do you need to bring extra recall petitions to sign them first before the signer in the home signs his first?
There is a superficial similarity, at best.
Stop being stupid.
Let's see Gawker publish the names of all the GAY people in Gotham and what fetishes they're into and what diseases they have.
Yep. "Information wants to be free" is the new sacrilege. Gawker doesn't believe in any privacy at all.
I agree with what Synova wrote. I’ve long opposed mandatory gun registration because historically it’s been the prelude to gun confiscation but this is another good reason to oppose it as well.
As much as I agree that owning a gun is an "out and proud" activity... I don't live in Manhattan amongst the deep blue people. I don't think Gawker intended to "shame" gun owners at all. That's not their job.
No, that's the job of the gun owner's neighbors and their social circle. I don't think Gawker even expects a heated confrontation between the Manhattan Gun Owner and the Manhattan Ultra Liberal. It will take the form of passive-aggressive ostracizing. The neighbor's kids aren't allowed to come over after school any more, 'cuz Mom saw your name on The List. No more invitations to the holiday party. Your charity fundraising efforts are suddenly less productive. The whispers before your yoga class, the quiet from your hairdresser, the looks from the other parents at the PTA meetings.
It's right there in the title. Gun owners are 'assholes'. Gawker believes that you need to know who they are so you can treat them as such.
phx said...
Why treat it like it's an attack? Why not just look at it like they're simply publishing the public record, no big deal.
Hey stupid shit:
According to the criminal complaint, Wolowski said his goal was to steal guns from a safe inside the home.
No big deal!
You're so fucking dumb I kind of feel sorry for you.
Kind of.
phx said...
While I don't have a Dawg in this fight, I gotta agree with Pogo that I can't see what the motive is for this attack on registered gun owners.
Why treat it like it's an attack? Why not just look at it like they're simply publishing the public record, no big deal. Sometimes you just empower your enemies by getting all het up over what they do. Haven't they always wanted empowerment?
Are you a public employee? Would you like your name and address and what you do for a living printed in the paper?
Do you own a firearm?
After the mandated gun-turn-in program in Australia, teachers would often talk about guns and show pictures, getting kids to talk about them. When a kid said something that indicated that a child had some knowledge of guns they would get them to talk about how they knew, acting excited and making the kids feel special. Some where in the process they would get the kids to talk about whether they still had guns in the home. That information made its way to the authorities. That story came from an Aussie teacher I met, who told me their principal talked about the method during a group meeting. She did talk about guns--should anyone check--but she never did find any information to use. And never would.
A message from Walter Brennan to garage mahal: link
(click on arrow to hear)
We've come a long way since the days when the NSF listening to phone calls with suspected terrorists and not releasing any information was the end of all privacy in this country.
So, NYC, through gawker, has published a complete list of names and addresses of all of its resident police officers (current and retired), FBI agents, military personnel, and those who have justified to the state their need for a firearm?
Wow.
As a non-NYC proponent of personal ownership of firearms, I can be outraged in principle at this, but consider exactly who it is that will now be outraged for specific, personal reasons.
If any more hard-core liberal enclaves want to do this to themselves, I strongly encourage them to do so.
Perhaps we need an interactive map of the locations of all the leftwing trolls on this site's home addresses.
Wouldn't want the neighbors unwittingly letting their children play near the yard of the the mentally deficient.
How about it, Garage, Ritmo, Inga et al? I'm sure that you will be the first to volunteer registry of your home information. For SAFETY.
How about you phx? After all, its not big deal. How about you be the first to be out and proud with your home address information?
"Why not just look at it like they're simply publishing the public record, no big deal."
Since its no big deal, why don't you tell us your address, I'm sure its in the public record somewhere.
Tibore said...
"It's only a problem because there's a perceived shame in owning a gun. That's really what has to change here; there should be none of that."
Not all criminals avoid gun owners. Some go after them to get the gun.
Tibore said...
"It's only a problem because there's a perceived shame in owning a gun. That's really what has to change here; there should be none of that."
Not all criminals avoid gun owners. Some go after them to get the gun.
How about it, Garage, Ritmo, Inga et al? I'm sure that you will be the first to volunteer registry of your home information. For SAFETY.
In all fairness to Garage, he flat-out stated that he thought this was an invasion of privacy.
I want a list of all government employees and their addresses.
I have the one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue already...
Note how Garbage STILL hasn't linked to the article outing the recall petitioners.
But will later claim that he did. And that it happened.
This is the Big Lie on parade, kids. Study it; future generations will, anyway.
I Callahan said...
In all fairness to Garage, he flat-out stated that he thought this was an invasion of privacy.
This time, since he's already on record whining about the Wisconsin petitioners. He made no objections to the outing or harassment of California prop 8 supporters though.
There are two differences between the Wisconsin petitioners and this event. First the publication of the petitioners had a purpose beyond encouraging harassment: validating the signatures. It would have been better for that to occur in private but the regulating body's decision precluded that.
And second there's no comparison between the level of harassment or other negative impacts to be endured by the outed groups. First because the personal is political is a leftist mantra without a rightist counterpart. But also because the issue itself isn't as politically divisive.
Pogo made the best comparison: what if the right made abortions a public record and outed everyone who got one? Were that to occur I would expect harassment and would be against the outing on that basis.
Eric Holder has flat out stated he wants to create a society where gun ownership is considered shameful.
From Joe Biden today, the entire quote.
"As the president said, if you're actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking. But I'm convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm's way if we act responsibly."
I suspect executive orders on banning/confiscating privately owned automobiles will follow shortly after any that mention privately-owned firearms.
Tens of thousands of people die every year in auto-related incidents, but somehow, we as a society have come to accept that and live with it.
Via Insty/Drudge:
"The president is going to act," said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. "There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."
Biden said that this is a moral issue and that "it's critically important that we act."
Biden talked also about taking responsible action. "As the president said, if you're actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking. But I'm convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm's way if we act responsibly."
Biden, as he himself noted, helped write the Brady bill.
Eric Holder was scheduled to be at the meeting that's currently taking place at the White House.
Oh, man, the pubbies can tie up the hearings 4 eva with all the lives guns have saved.
Then get those abused/stalked women to testify.
Another War On Women from the Administration.
Perhaps we need an interactive map of the locations of all the leftwing trolls on this site's home addresses.
I didn't know that being a left-wing troll was a part of the public record. But go ahead and FOIL my info.
Are you a public employee?Would you like your name and address and what you do for a living printed in the paper?
Some public employees even have their salaries published.
That's part of what public records are about. Sometimes it's a real bitch, but whattayagonnado? Write another law?
Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic and hilarious if a few of the "people" at Gawker got killed in a knife attack?
Some of you creeps have no business talking about the other creeps.
phx has long since outed himself as a rabid left winger.
It comes down to what is or is not a legitimate object of public interest. The salaries of public employees are such a legitimate object. Their home addresses, not so much.
Just because something is legal, doesn't make it moral or ethical. Of course anything that leads to the banning of guns or gun confiscation is moral in the eyes of a rabid, drooling lefty. I swear they eat conservative kids.
phx has long since outed himself as a rabid left winger.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
except during the election you called yourself a center-left moderate.
except during the election you called yourself a center-left moderate.
Yeah, that's fairly accurate IMO.
"You say that like its a bad thing"
While mush-brained leftwing idiots like you deny labels like "good" and "bad" with your politically correct relativistic bullshit, it is in fact a very bad thing. And you are a bad person, advocating for bad policies and politicians.
Much like your jug eared jesus at election time, you attempted to put on a veneer of moderatism, but fooled only those who wanted to be fooled (like Althouse for example).
Why don't you wear you let your leftist colors fly proudly, as you advise the gun owners out on the map to do?
But as I see you are not eager to be more forward with your home address, I question the sincerity of your earlier statements. Under Dear Leader Obama, the personal is political, so shouldn't EVERYTHING be part of the public record? Information wants to be free after all.
You are a sad little hypocrite, and I can only hope that at some point the logical endpoint of the policies you advocate comes back to affect harm you personally.
Wouldn't a list of law-breaking unlicensed gun owners be more useful?
Given the profile of the mass-killings shooters, publish names and addresses of anyone with a psychiatric condition requiring medication -- that way neighbors, law enforcement, etc., will know who the ticking time-bombs are.
Like those registered sex-offender maps available on-line.
Given the profile of the mass-killings shooters, publish names and addresses of anyone with a psychiatric condition requiring medication
Especially those living with people who have guns!
I question the sincerity of your earlier statements. Under Dear Leader Obama, the personal is political, so shouldn't EVERYTHING be part of the public record? Information wants to be free after all.
Man, wtf are you talking about?
Tibor said: Plus, if you're licensed to carry, you'll have your weapon with you when you leave home anyway.
Why would you assume that? Some people work where weapons are not allowed ~ military installations, for example. So that concealed carry does you no good whatsoever ~ it can't even BE in your vehicle while you're ON the base, less mind ON your person while at your job.
That first comment, from Pogo, was insightful. Exercise our rights supposedly guaranteed by the Second Amendment and we have no privacy. There's no right to abortion in the Constitution or its amendments but courts manufacture a right to privacy and presto! there's a right to procure abortions. Still no privacy for lawful gun owners though.
Only a lawyer could think there is some kind of consistent legal principle behind all this. (Gawkers don' need no steenkin' principles.)
Why are people concentrating on my throwaway line about concealed carry instead of the substance of my post? Ok, fine, there are times you'll leave your gun at home. That STILL leaves the fact that everyone's ceding initiative and undue power to Gawker by validating their decision to publish a list of gun owners as something that.
How about we concentrate on what's important from here on out instead of trivialities? I'm trying to address the overarching principle, and you all are concentrating on the minutiae. Do people allow Gawker to intimidate legal, licensed gun owners, or do we invalidate their efforts? THAT'S what's important here.
Here in Appalachia it is hard to shame a gun owner.
I was at a gun show Sunday afternoon and could hardly find a parking place 1 hour before it closed. I had to thread my way through the crowd inside.
A vendor told me the day before was was really crazy.
I guess so ... two of the three handguns I was looking for to check out could not be found at any of the vendors in the rather large hall.
For shame!
JAL - Appalachia is not exactly the hi-tech center of the world. I'm more interested in what's the gun culture of Cupertino, CA.
We have to wonder....is he sleeping much? http://exposegannett.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/john-cook-gawker-hack-journalist/
We have to wonder....is he sleeping much? http://exposegannett.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/john-cook-gawker-hack-journalist/
We have to wonder, is he sleeping much?
http://exposegannett.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/john-cook-gawker-hack-journalist/
How about publishing the list with addresses of all same-sex marriages because marriage licenses are public. Would that make sense?
Alex, you're free to determine if gun ownership is "moral" for you but it is legal. I thought the left was pro-choice.
Since we spend $540 million on abortions I think the names of those who have received publicly funded abortion should be published. Just as the names and addresses of those on welfare. The left needs to think long and hard about going down this road.
"That's part of what public records are about. Sometimes it's a real bitch, but whattayagonnado? Write another law?"
Yeah.
The law that says that government misuse or release of personal information on private citizens is a crime.
Really... and I agree with garage that petition signers shouldn't be "outed" and I'd add that political donations should be private information as well. We certainly can manage to define the legal use of personal information that has to go through verification processes but shouldn't be used in such a way that the legitimate purposes are met, accountability is possible, and the information remains private.
For example... who I give money to may need to be tracked for compliance with election laws (though election laws are another discussion entirely) but the party I'm registered with or the amount of money I give or if I donate to some odd group... that really ought to be as private as my vote.
Yes, it's interesting to see that university staff and journalists give 90% or better to Democrats, but can you imagine being the outlier and having that information searchable? And if you can't imagine ever actually BEING a minority, you have both an empathy and a reality problem.
This "public information" excuse is like the scarlet letter or a Hollywood black list. If the government has a legitimate purpose in collecting the information AT ALL, it doesn't follow that it has to be "public" in any way.
Also, FOI requests are for information that isn't public, not normally, and specifically information that isn't in public databases.
Computers and technology are wonderful things, but we haven't adjusted to how easy it is to research who your political opponents are, out them, and harass them.
We can also do something to enforce a "no picketing residences" reality, drive by once or twice, take a picture from the street, fine... stand on the sidewalk and yell at their children and... since we really don't need new laws... allow paintball retaliation, stink bombs and fire hoses.
Sounds good to me.
phx said...
except during the election you called yourself a center-left moderate.
Yeah, that's fairly accurate IMO.
It's easy to convince yourself you're a moderate when you don't apply your alleged standards to the party you support.
Tibore... I think that some people are more comfortable with concealed carry and that's what they'd prefer.
There is at least one group that advocates open carry where ever open carry is legal in order to accustom the general public to seeing guns in holsters in public. I think they've got a good point, but so do people who would rather not flaunt the fact that they have a gun on them.
Letting people chose to be "out" or not, doesn't prove that whatever they don't want to share is shameful.
Mark Nielsen,
"I'm a freeloader, and really prefer to remain that way. But one thing that allows me to be comfortable being a freeloader is that criminals cannot *know* who the non-freeloaders are. "
FIFY.
Sorry, while I am 100% in favor of people not owning guns if they don't want to, you should be sheepish* about your lack of ability to contribute to the community's overall self-defense, not out-and-proud about hiding behind it.
----------------------------
*That's if there's no mitigating circumstance preventing you from effectively wielding a weapon; nobody things ill of quadriplegics for not being able to hold and aim a firearm, the blind for being unable to drive, etc...
Don't be an asshole, Kirk. If someone is not comfortable with a gun, they should NOT own one. So cut your pseudo-macho bullshit.
I once heard a scuffle. Looked out the window of my apartment to see four people race away from an unconscious man. While others helped him and called 911, I chased after the four punks. After they saw me coming, they split up and cut between houses. I caught up with two of them and stuck with them until an officer came by so that I could identify them. They were immediately arrested.
I did this without owning a gun; therefore, by your reasoning, I did not contribute to the "community's overall self-defense". (Hell, I did this while not wearing shoes as, at the time, I was getting ready for bed.)
There are more ways than just owning a gun that a person can contribute to their "community's overall self-defense".
Good for you Matt. I once chased a shoplifter into a parking lot and he picked up a rock to confront me. So I picked up a stick. Then cops came. No guns were involved. But don't be silly and assume that every conflict needs to be mano a mano without weapons. That's just naive.
sykes.1,
I remember the 60s. They were Hell. I fear they are coming back. I am really, really afraid for all Americans.
You've never seen Hell.
But I believe we're all about to.
Pogo,
They're pitting brother against brother, and things have already gotten very very ugly. Violence seems in the offing.
Hard to believe that's not in the plan, given the huge amount of ammo the feds have been buying in the last four years.
Not just the Feds, and not just in the last four years.
While the Clinton administration was stirring up fears of "right-wing militias" it was spending BILLIONS of dollars arming every federal agent in sight.
A few years ago I attended a rifle marksmanship class, and one of my classmates was a sheriff's deputy from Long Island. His department had stockpiled MILLIONS of rounds of ammunition.
Another classmate observed, "That's not for use against criminals. It's for use against us."
Alex -- It was a response to the silly notion that one can shame gun owners.
Now about Cupertino -- Cupertino is the elite west coast, no?
And in many parts of California it is next to impossible to get CCW -- or even a license? {Wave at Diane CCW Feinstein}.
Well, maybe not so shame-able, since according to CBS Californians bought 600,000 guns in 2011 and 817,000 in 2012.
Maybe Bagho can weigh in.
@Synova:
The entire line about concealed carry was simply to point out that there are circumstances where the argument that guns can be stolen from a home doesn't apply. I meant it as nothing more than a minor side argument, a mere addendum at best. Icing, so to speak. But for some odd reason people have glommed onto it as though it were a significant point. It's not; it was a throwaway statement that's turned into a distraction.
I really wish I didn't post it now because people have chosen to use the line to be argumentative instead of paying attention to the larger point. And that's blowing my mind; it's harping over a triviality.
Also, yes, I do not agree at all with "Mandatory Outings", but that's my point: In reacting the way people are to Gawker, we're giving them the power to dictate the course of the debate, as well as which tactics are effective, by ceding control to them over this. An excellent mitigating tactic would be to accept that the Gawker writer acted improperly and shamefully, but the action is essentially empty beyond that because revealing who owns gun licenses is about as interesting as revealing who owns cars. My entire point is that it shouldn't be usable as an anti-gun bludgeon. But reacting the way people have been so far is making the Gawker tactic effective. And that acts as de facto validation of their actions, despite people's intent.
I simply do not understand why people have glommed onto everything else about this issue except for what I feel is the obvious: That the Gawker act is essentially a prudish, Victorian-like, Puritan-like echo of attempting to shame people. Of course there's nothing inherently shameful about someone choosing to not share an aspect of their life, but that's why I'm saying people are acting counterproductively in this whole case. That's my entire point: That there is NOT anything shameful about gun ownership, nor choosing to either reveal such or keep it private. But when we don't turn that around on Gawker by demonstrating that their act doesn't accomplish what they want, we don't defang it. When we overreact, we enable it. And that is what I've been trying to get at the whole time, to hell with my careless statement about concealed carry. If people act as though the revelation has no power over them, then Gawker's act is rendered meaningless. Why people choose not to understand or care about that is beyond me.
Matt,
Did you miss the part where Mark said "I don't want a gun, but I don't want criminals to know I don't have one"? That's the freeloading part, and he said it himself. I'm just point out the difference between "I am unable" and "I choose not to".
And you appear to have also missed the part where I said "I am 100% in favor of people not owning guns if they don't want to"...
chicklit said...
But don't be silly and assume that every conflict needs to be mano a mano without weapons. That's just naive.
Chicklit, I don't understand your point. Is that even directed at me?
-------------
Kirk, if you are 100% in favor of people not owning guns if they don't want, calling them "freeloaders" for not owning is inconsistent. Clearly, if they are freeloaders for not wanting to own a gun, then, you do not 100% support people not owning guns who do not want to as you are critical of those who do not want to own a gun.
It is as though you are saying, "I 100% support your decision to not own a gun if you do not want to, you freeloader."
Additionally, you said, "...you should be sheepish* about your lack of ability to contribute to the community's overall self-defense..." That is, by not owning a gun they are unable to contribute to the community's overall self-defense. You did not say their "limited ability"; you said "lack of ability". As in, "no ability". A position you double-down on with your qualifier where you again speak in absolute circumstances where you imply that you either own a gun, are physically unable to manage one or are a freeloader. That is just ridiculous.
I live in uber-leftist Seattle where the voters voted against a plastic bag ban, which the city council went ahead voted to implement anyway. I have told people that if I had children who attended the same school as one of the children of those council members that I would instruct my children to try and get those kids bullied out of school.
Make the lives of the gun grabbers hell. Publish a list of their children and the schools they attend. Then instruct your children to bully them so badly that they are forced to leave the school.
Time to go to war.
Matt wrote: Chicklit, I don't understand your point. Is that even directed at me?
You made a point about community policing without firearms which is a good one. I made a point of community policing with weapons which fell short of firearms. Conflicts occur all the time -- some involve guns and some don't. Unilateral disarmament is not a good idea because it will always favor the one with the gun. We are not a nation of Gandhis.
Matt,
Let me try one last time.
Yes, people who think they can't manage the ownership or use of firearms shouldn't have any, but... that doesn't mean we, or particularly they, should not gloss over the ramifications of someone voluntarily eschewing the best available means of self-protection.
Similarly, it's perfectly legal (here at least, I make no such claim about Nanny-Bloomberg-Land) to live in a residence and have no land line and no cell phone service. However, this means you have no way of notifying public safety services in the event of a crime, fire, etc, so you are depending on your neighbors to cover for you, w/o being able to assist them in the same way. "You've got my back, but as for yours--you're on your own."
Chickelet, ok, I get what you are saying I just don't understand why you are directing it at me. I don't recall at any time ever making a statement that was anti-gun ownership. If I had a gun, I would most assuredly had grabbed it when I left the apartment that day. As it happens, I did not.
Kirk, the Gawker schmuck was trying to shame people who own guns. He is an asshole. You are trying to shame those who do not. Get the parallel?
Are you certified as a first responder? Well, some of your neighbors probably are! What a self-centered prick you are by not being similarly trained!! What if you are injured and need immediate first aid or CPR? Could you do the same for your neighbor?
Have you been trained to talk down a suicidal individual? Well, what if one of your neighbors was despondent and you were the first person there!? One of your neighbors may have been trained. How selfish of you to not be able to do the same for them that you might need them to do for you!
My point is that people should be able to live their lives as works best for them so long as they are not infringing on the rights of others. Gawker was attempting to intimidate people who were doing just that. Your position that non-gun owners should be sheepish is the same type of act. You are trying to guilt them into comporting to your world view.
While Gawker named names, yours is nearly as bad as I like to think that Althouse's audience is larger than Gawker's. (If I am wrong on the traffic, please, do not disabuse me of that belief as I want to believe that virtually nobody visits that shit stain of the internet.)
If you still cannot understand the similarities between your statements and Gawker's acts, then, we should just agree to disagree and move on.
Do you offer any predictions on unemployment? Do you think structural unemployment will be resolved? Do you think the President's stimulus for the economy will make a difference.
predict science
water pollution
who is edgar casey
cayce edga
are edgar cayce
what is the environment
environment topics
environment
seminar topics
البرامج الكاملة والمشروحة - أحدث الألعاب - أفلام عربى - أفلام اجنبى - أغانى عربى - أغانى اجنبى - ترفيه وكوميديا - المنتدى - EgyTopic - ايجى توبيك
I am Mariam,from what I can read. It has been sad news and scam to everyone about Voodoo casters or so. But to me they are so real cause one worked for me not quite two weeks.i met this man on a blog his name is lalude Abija is a very powerful man.I traveled down to where his shrine his and we both did the ritual and sacrifice.he had no website site, and now me and my ex are living very ok now.I don't know about you but Voodoo is real;love marriage,finance, job promotion ,lottery Voodoo,poker voodoo,golf Voodoo,Law & Court case Spells,money voodoo,weigh loss voodoo,diabetic voodoo,hypertensive voodoo,high cholesterol voodoo,Trouble in marriage,Barrenness(need a child),Luck, Money Spells,it's all he does. I used my money to purchase everything he used he never collected a dime from. He told me I can repay him anytime with anything from my heart. Now I don't know how to do that. If you can help or you need his help write him on ( oduakar1@live.com ) Thank you.
فاير داون -
تحميل برامج مجانية -
هوت سبوت شيلد -
ياهو -
داون لود مانجر -
تشارلز -
فايرفوكس -
نمبر بوك -
موزيلا فايرفوكس -
جوجل كروم -
متصفح جوجل كروم -
نت كت -
افاست انتى فيرس -
افيرا انتى فيرس -
سكاى بى -
وينامب -
تحميل برامج
Post a Comment