Where will it stop?

[OntheRail]

These Yahoos don't have enough the report... they have to fabricate "news". Public Information should not equal Published Information... if any of these homes are robbed I hope they drag these morons into court.

The Map (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_us+%28RSS%3A+U.S.%2 9)


Flipping the script. (http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/26/journalists-addresses-posted-google-maps-gun/?icid=maing-grid7|netscape|dl2|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D249935)

Where does it stop.

[Dave Schwartz]

"One of our roles is to report publicly available information on timely issues, even when unpopular. We knew publication of the database (as well as the accompanying article providing context) would be controversial, but we felt sharing information about gun permits in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings," she said.

LOL- Important how?

Perhaps to inform the burglars where it is safe to burgle?

[ArlJim78]

an intrepid blogger has prepared a handy list (http://www.newrochelletalk.com/content/map-where-are-journal-news-employees-your-neighborhood)of the names, phone numbers and addresses of the employees of that paper, complete with a map. I think it's great that he is sharing this "important" personal information.

[Actor]

Public Information should not equal Published Information...But it does.
if any of these homes are robbed I hope they drag these morons into court.I doubt they'd have a case. It would be first amendment vs. second amendment.

[hcap]

These Yahoos don't have enough the report... they have to fabricate "news". Public Information should not equal Published Information... if any of these homes are robbed I hope they drag these morons into court.

Where does it stop.Nonsense. It gives the "bad guys" pause to burglarize the "good guy" homes. And why would any gun owner, a proud protector of truth, justice and THE AMERICAN WAY, be ashamed of owning a piece of the 2nd amendment?

Besides as it was and still is, deterrence is strength. Or is the theoretical leap now the "bad guys" will scour the list, know who is packing, and attack with tanks and a bazooka? :lol: :lol:

[HUSKER55]

OR, they will attack with a smaller arsenal and carry away more loot from YOUR HOUSE from YOUR FAMILY.

[Tom]

Nonsense. It gives the "bad guys" pause to burglarize the "good guy" homes. And why would any gun owner, a proud protector of truth, justice and THE AMERICAN WAY, be ashamed of owning a piece of the 2nd amendment?

Of course hcap would find this amusing.
He is that kind of political low-life.

Providing a list of those who have guns makes them a target for robberies, and it also give criminals a list of those who do not have any protection, privacy aside.

Face it hcap, you are nothing but a political hack - you are not a real person - not one of us.

How about we publish a list of blind people so that crooks would not have to worry about being ID'd.

You like that idea?
Or we publish pictures of everyone's little kids, with addresses, what schools they attend, what organizations they belong to, yo know, so tracking them would easy.

You libs really disgust me.

[OntheRail]

Nonsense. It gives the "bad guys" pause to burglarize the "good guy" homes. And why would any gun owner, a proud protector of truth, justice and THE AMERICAN WAY, be ashamed of owning a piece of the 2nd amendment?

Besides as it was and still is, deterrence is strength. Or is the theoretical leap now the "bad guys" will scour the list, know who is packing, and attack with tanks and a bazooka? :lol: :lol:


Well I'd be willing to bet... EACH AND EVERYONE of those with a dot on the map is a working productive member of society. That means 8-12 hours away from home. Now that this has been plastered all over. The leaches on the economy have a map that will allow them to use one of those Obama Phones to plot a route to steal more goodies. And after they hit a few red dots they can run roughshod over the areas that have no dots. So when you hear that bump in the night and you yell... I HAVE A GUN. they be... :lol: cause the app said otherwise... Sleep Well ;).



Originally Posted by OntheRail
Public Information should not equal Published Information...
But it does.
When the screw turns and the Fed's out your Healthcare recorders remember this. Cause when the tax payer starts footing the bill your right to privacy goes out the window...as it's no longer you and your Dr. It the Dr. and the oversight board their staff and Big Pharma centralized records... this map app is just the top of the slope.



Originally Posted by OntheRail
if any of these homes are robbed I hope they drag these morons into court.

I doubt they'd have a case. It would be first amendment vs. second amendment.

It was irresponsible yellow journalism and I use that term loosely.

But by doing so they could be putting children in danger... Mom and Dad have to work not only to support themselves (but those that game the system to get EBT cards.)... so while they work... the low lives play.

So by them "publishing" this information for no other reason then to invade the owners rights to own a item they deprived them of their right to privacy.

One person walking into the courthouse and looking over Public Info is one thing... taking that info and printing it with a app map for the masses for malicious purposes is another. And crosses a fine line.

[Tom]

That means 8-12 hours away from home.

See, a true liberal has no clue what this mean.
WHY are they away?
WHERE do they go?
WHAT is a job?

Libs don't have to leave home since they started send EBT cards electronically. :lol::lol:

[NJ Stinks]

Face it hcap, you are nothing but a political hack - you are not a real person - not one of us.



Tom, I can assure you that I'm not one of you either. :rolleyes:

Having said that, I don't see any good coming from publishing this list. I don't like it when newspapers print the names and addresses of people behind in their property taxes either.

"Personal information" doesn't seem to mean much of anything anymore.

[Actor]

... if any of these homes are robbed I hope they drag these morons into court.Since "these morons" have broken no law it would have to be a civil case, and the plaintiffs would bear a very heavy burden of proof. They would have to prove that the defendants caused loss or injury. The simple exercise of first amendment rights probably would not suffice and the case would be thrown out of court.

If the court did hear the case then the plaintiffs would have to prove that

the robbers targeted the plaintiffs because they knew that the plaintiffs possessed firearms and
that they obtained this information from the defendants.

The first element implies that the robbers motive was the theft of the firearms. Any other motive suggests that the robbers were either unaware of the firearms in the house or committed the robbery in spite of them. Either way, the plaintiff's case collapses.

Proof of the second element would have to come from testimony of the robbers, which implies they are in custody. Why would they cooperate with the plaintiffs? The defense would certainly attack their reliability as witnesses.

Finally the defense would come back to the defendant's first amendment rights. You cannot be held accountable for what others do in response to what you say or print, with two exceptions: (1)you cannot spread false alarm, such as yelling "fire" in a theater when there is no fire, and (2)you cannot incite to riot or rebellion. The defendants in this case have done neither.

[Actor]

It was irresponsible yellow journalism and I use that term loosely.The constitution does not distinguish between "yellow journalism," however you define it, and journalism in general.

One person walking into the courthouse and looking over Public Info is one thing... taking that info and printing it with a app map for the masses for malicious purposes is another. And crosses a fine line.Again, it is a "fine line" that the constitution does not recognize.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[OntheRail]

Since "these morons" have broken no law it would have to be a civil case, and the plaintiffs would bear a very heavy burden of proof. They would have to prove that the defendants caused loss or injury. The simple exercise of first amendment rights probably would not suffice and the case would be thrown out of court.

If the court did hear the case then the plaintiffs would have to prove that

the robbers targeted the plaintiffs because they knew that the plaintiffs possessed firearms and
that they obtained this information from the defendants.

The first element implies that the robbers motive was the theft of the firearms. Any other motive suggests that the robbers were either unaware of the firearms in the house or committed the robbery in spite of them. Either way, the plaintiff's case collapses.

Proof of the second element would have to come from testimony of the robbers, which implies they are in custody. Why would they cooperate with the plaintiffs? The defense would certainly attack their reliability as witnesses.

Finally the defense would come back to the defendant's first amendment rights. You cannot be held accountable for what others do in response to what you say or print, with two exceptions: (1)you cannot spread false alarm, such as yelling "fire" in a theater when there is no fire, and (2)you cannot incite to riot or rebellion. The defendants in this case have done neither.

Nether did the Home Owners... Victims of violence... or Retired Police. But moronic publishers cared not.

Well cookies leave crumbs if robbers uses a smart phone or laptop a simple sweep could connect the dots quite easily. Now days warrants always include electronic devices. Maybe they post their exploits on Facebook (think they snagged a bank robber that way mot long ago). Lawyers can roll the dice and Juries can be quite unpredictable just look to Florida and the Anthony debacle. In this day and age anything can happen.

But did they not... SHOUT GUN to cause fear... when none were in view?

[OntheRail]

The constitution does not distinguish between "yellow journalism," however you define it, and journalism in general.

Again, it is a "fine line" that the constitution does not recognize.

But the Founders never could of envisioned the internet and social media.. is that not the Gun Grabbers logical stretch when it come to "Modern Semi Automatic Weapons"... when that musty old Doc was written it was muzzle loading Kentucky Long Riffles. Well back in their day electricity was a string theory... the telephone would not of rung a bell if the word was even uttered.. ;).

The Line use to be unwritten... but respected. A Moral Line... but I guess that's a outmoded idea in this day and age.


Originally Posted by Benjamin Franklin
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This I agree with 100%... :ThmbUp: .

[hcap]

If I were a parent living in those counties, I would like to know if my kids played in homes of neighbors homes with firearms on the premises.

Homicide rates, accidental injuries, and suicide rates are markedly higher in those homes.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/index.html

.................................................. ..........................

See, a true liberal has no clue what this mean.
WHY are they away?
WHERE do they go?
WHAT is a job?

Libs don't have to leave home since they started send EBT cards electronically.
Hate to break it to you but there appears to be no correlation between guns and employment. My guess is that non gunning owning people who are unemployed just spend time gabbing on their Obama Phones. Whereas True Blur owners of a piece of the Second Amendment who are unemployed tend to shoot themselves.Particularly if they think about the ass whipping the Dynamic Dou, Romney/Ryan got.

There is a hidden benefit this list of gun licensees was published. Gun less people will now know who can protect them from the coming zombie apocalypse organized by Obama, the UN and the Bilderbergers, enabled by the Agenda 21 secret mind washing techniques.

[rastajenk]

If I were a parent living in those counties, I would like to know if my kids played in homes of neighbors homes with firearms on the premises.
You could always just ask them.

[Tom]

You could always just ask them.

That would be a responsible thing to do.
Why on Earth would a lib do the responsible thing? :lol:

[Tom]

I guess the libs will have no problem with this retaliation then?
All they need do now is post the schools where their kids attend and maps of the routes from their homes to the school -along, of course, with photos.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253938/Blogger-publishes-New-York-newspaper-employees-names-addresses-retaliation-papers-decision-publish-map-gun-permit-holders.html

Fountain posted the map (http://www.newrochelletalk.com/content/map-where-are-journal-news-employees-your-neighborhood) with the text: 'Ha! Where are the Journal News reporters in YOUR neighborhood?'

[johnhannibalsmith]

If I were a parent living in those counties, I would like to know if my kids played in homes of neighbors homes with firearms on the premises.

Homicide rates, accidental injuries, and suicide rates are markedly higher in those homes.

....

Yeah, I knew some people with kids that after the 9/11 attacks in New York were clamoring that the paper should release the names and addresses of anyone and everyone that had Muslim affiliations since the chance of becoming a jihadist terrorist is ten quadrillion times higher in Muslim homes than in others.

[hcap]

Not in this country.

That fear is Fox news territory, and that would be Islamophobic righties who are afraid of their own asses becoming Muslim terrorists.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Not in this country.

That fear is Fox news territory, and that would be Islamophobic righties who are afraid of their own asses becoming Muslim terrorists.

The point being, rather obviously, that people seem to pick and choose which "scarlet letter" is justifiable and which is simple intolerance. People really aren't all that different, whether it is targeting lawful Muslims with justifications that their presence is a public danger or it is targeting lawful gun owners with justifications that their presence is a public danger. We just like to believe that our justifications aren't actually biases even if the thinking behind the two examples is similar enough that either both have to be condoned, or more accurately, promoted, in society or neither really should be.

[hcap]

There you go again with the false equivalency bit.

There is a difference. 40% of homes have at least one gun.
The most common cause of deaths occurring at homes where guns are present, by far, is suicide. Many of these self-inflicted gunshot wounds appear to be impulsive acts by people without previous evidence of mental illness. Guns in the home are also associated with a fivefold increase in the rate of intimate partner homicide, as well as an increased risk of injuries and death to children.

..."There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes, and it appears that a gun in the home may more likely be used to threaten intimates than to protect against intruders," wrote Hemenway. "On the potential benefit side, there is no good evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in."


And

Are the majority of American Muslims members of mosques run by radical extremists? If so, then they must be sheltering terrorists. But the data on indigenous Muslim terrorism paint a very different picture. University of North Carolina Professor Charles Kurzman found that of the approximately 2.5 million American Muslims, the total number of terrorism suspects and perpetrators from 2001 to 2010 was a mere 161 individuals. Here are Kurzman’s data:
-The initial source of information for 25 of them is not known.
- For another 16, law enforcement only learned about them after the attacks were carried out.
- For the remaining 120 individuals, the largest single source of initial information: 48, involved tips from the American Muslim community. So the statistical evidence for homegrown support of Muslim terrorism is underwhelming (and dwarfed by the “Real American” variant: Timothy McVey and his co-conspirators accounted for more deaths than all other indigenous terrorists combined).

[hcap]

Ok, so much for going after gun owners and their sacred cows.

I will admit I do believe that privacy is the overriding concern more than public awareness, and I really am NOT in favor of this maps publication.

Righties, thank you very much for all the stock answers.
:lol: :lol:

PS: Any mention I made of a "zombie apocalypse", however I meant.

[johnhannibalsmith]

There you go again with the false equivalency bit.

...

Well, when you pull this card, I've learned to just quit - and I knew it would be coming because it seems that's how you like to avoid the broader opinion and reacting to it. But, for the sake of it... You can make a case for just about any comparison being a false equivalency. I'm not looking for equivalence, I'm looking for an illustration why it's ethical bullshit in both cases for similar reasons, and that people struggle to stay on the same side of their disillusionment with media conduct depending upon the context. You go on with some weird evidence of why there's no comparison between the two and in the process just furthur tangle up the broader illustration. There's no legitimate justification for publishing names and addresses in either case unless you fall back on the "public service" theory. If you are looking for actual equivalence, or lack thereof, the standard would be how many legal gun owners are responsible for an act of violence in the home from firearms versus how many Muslim homes foster an individual that becomes or is a jihadist.

In both cases, even pretending that it is a public service to divulge lawful individuals' information under the pretense that they share some common bond with the hated cause de celebre (Muslim, guns) is just simple stereotyping.

The same story could have been done without personal information, a map that illustrates the pervasiveness of gun owners in various regions, and there's no problem. Injecting the personal information is either completely unjustifiable and wrong, or it is done in the name of public safety, which you alluded to. I can think of no other defense for it. And the illustration that a publication would be ripped to shreds for stereotyping practicing muslims the way that gun owners are here because of one incident that had nothing to do with them or their personal history is not invalid. And it goes both ways, for both sides. I think even you can possible concede that we tend to punish the wrong people in the name of "public safety", we are just selective in our outrage when it happens if the people being punished or the subject matter varies. We are wildly inconsistent in our standards for acceptable stereotyping and acting upon those stereotypes.

[hcap]

You picked the wrong issue to hold up as an illustration. Islamaphobia is a kneejerk reaction to a straw men hyped by a lunatic hateful crowd and supported by only some so-called media. Notably Faux Noos. Very similar to antisemitism, and reminiscent of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Hyped by idiots and pundit like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, David Horowitz,
Daniel Pipes, and Michael Savage.

Publishing a list of gun owners so the public can see at one glance exactly what the public record is, is very different.

And you were trying to do another equivalency comparison.
You failed.

The basic problem is that you gentlemen have enshrined the 2nd amendment into God's Law, changing what many believe the real intention oh the founders of the constitution. A well regulated States Militia It was pushed over politically to an individuals right to own by groups like the NRA during the last few decades and eventually supported by the supreme court.

So you guys think you own a part of the second amendment and consequently wax sacrosanct. For others who think it is a privilege not a immutable right, the whole issue is no more than publishing a list of car ownership in your area

But although I tend to favor most liberal thinking and Obama most of the time, mostly because the alternative is too awful to contemplate, I do find privacy more the overriding and central issue, than the 2nd amendment, the first amendment, or the very genuine public concern about a REAL issue.

[johnhannibalsmith]

You picked the wrong issue to hold up as an illustration. Islamaphobia is a kneejerk reaction to a straw men hyped by a lunatic hateful crowd and supported by only some so-called media. Notably Faux Noos. Very similar to antisemitism, and reminiscent of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Hyped by idiots and pundit like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, David Horowitz,
Daniel Pipes, and Michael Savage.

Publishing a list of gun owners so the public can see at one glance exactly what the public record is, is very different.

And you were trying to do another equivalency comparison.
You failed.

The basic problem is that you gentlemen have enshrined the 2nd amendment into God's Law, changing what many believe the real intention oh the founders of the constitution. A well regulated States Militia It was pushed over politically to an individuals right to own by groups like the NRA during the last few decades and eventually supported by the supreme court.

So you guys think you own a part of the second amendment and consequently wax sacrosanct. For others who think it is a privilege not a immutable right, the whole issue is no more than publishing a list of car ownership in your area

But although I tend to favor most liberal thinking and Obama most of the time, mostly because the alternative is too awful to contemplate, I do find privacy more the overriding and central issue, than the 2nd amendment, the first amendment, or the very genuine public concern about a REAL issue.

Okay, sure. Motive and effect mean nothing to you, gotcha. You can see that one reaction is purely a kneejerk reaction, whereas outing all gun owners in the context of a mass tragedy and the danger that they present is in no way whatsoever a kneejerk reaction, or a straw man scenario, or perpetrated by a hateful crowd. Of course you don't see it, you think that it is righteous to treat all gun owners as the problem instead of addressing the specifics of the actual problem. No siree, that doesn't at all sound like something an Islamaphobe might do.

Again, I know it's pointless because you just read and hear what you want to read and hear, but for the ten trillionth time in this forum, I'm not a "gun guy". Never liked them, don't want one.

And it's not even close to the same thing as publishing a list of car owners. If that's what you choose to believe then I guess I need to refer to my own second sentence. You talk endlessly about false equivalency when it suits your desire to flummox the issue, but here you are comparing posting a list of gun owners to posting a list of car owners? Really? Motive and effect? Are you actually trying to convince me with a straight face that the list was published as a simple "hey look at this data" sidebar with no actual context? This has NOTHING to do with assigning the blame for gun deaths to these "second amendment nuts" that you just got through describing? Give me a break. You can't be that dull, you are just being totally disingenuous.

[hcap]

You and I will never agree. If you can not see the public outcry as genuine, real, a possible game changer this time, and not hysteria, and somehow think that the effect of publishing this list is going to create harm, even 1/100 the harm as guns themselves, you are sadly mistaken

[riskman]

Since "these morons" have broken no law it would have to be a civil case, and the plaintiffs would bear a very heavy burden of proof. They would have to prove that the defendants caused loss or injury. The simple exercise of first amendment rights probably would not suffice and the case would be thrown out of court.

If the court did hear the case then the plaintiffs would have to prove that

the robbers targeted the plaintiffs because they knew that the plaintiffs possessed firearms and
that they obtained this information from the defendants.

The first element implies that the robbers motive was the theft of the firearms. Any other motive suggests that the robbers were either unaware of the firearms in the house or committed the robbery in spite of them. Either way, the plaintiff's case collapses.

Proof of the second element would have to come from testimony of the robbers, which implies they are in custody. Why would they cooperate with the plaintiffs? The defense would certainly attack their reliability as witnesses.

Finally the defense would come back to the defendant's first amendment rights. You cannot be held accountable for what others do in response to what you say or print, with two exceptions: (1)you cannot spread false alarm, such as yelling "fire" in a theater when there is no fire, and (2)you cannot incite to riot or rebellion. The defendants in this case have done neither.

Thank You ,Clarence. Would it be Darrow or Thomas ? Let me take a guess.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...I do find privacy more the overriding and central issue, than the 2nd amendment, the first amendment, or the very genuine public concern about a REAL issue.

I just want to hit this because I meant to in order clear my own slate of thoughts. These are all things that don't need to be protected in a mutually exclusive fashion, though "privacy" is not an explicit Constitutional protection the way that those outlined in the two other clauses are. In fact, though we do have jurisdictional privacy laws and some federal laws that deal with specific elements (ie HIPAA) of personal protections, in most cases where it has been an issue of privacy vs. first amendment, the Constitutional protection tends to win.

In no way do I agree with another poster that already wants to see litigation because of what the paper did. They are well within their rights to do what they did. That's not an argument even worth pursuing, especially since any potential blowback is purely theoretical. For me, it is simply a matter of using a highly unethical strategy to brand lawful citizens as a problem, and in this case, part of a problem that led to a national tragedy. I won't bother with other such examples of media and people of influence doing such a thing in our history because you'll object automatically, but it isn't just, legal or not. I respect the right to do it and would never argue that they shouldn't have the right to do it, but I would just hope that people can separate themselves from their own biases and see why it is unjust while still being able to concede its legality.

[johnhannibalsmith]

You and I will never agree. If you can not see the public outcry as genuine, real, a possible game changer this time, and not hysteria, and somehow think that the effect of publishing this list is going to create harm, even 1/100 the harm as guns themselves, you are sadly mistaken

I'm not sure why you assign all of those characterizations to me. I see the genuine outcry, but I don't see it as a game-changer because nobody is talking about game-changing solutions. They are once again taking the easy way out, finding any old law that will be easiest to pass ("How can anyone POSSIBLY object to taking away military grade weapons from ordinary Joes") so that they can say that they did SOMETHING. That's not game-changing, that's just going back in recent time to a point that got us no closer to game changing.

As far as the list creating harm versus weapons creating harm - I don't get it. Is this list going to stop weapons from causing harm? Is that the justification for attacking ordinary, law-abiding citizens because we can't get even with the idiot that killed the kids? Somehow equating law-abiding citizens with Adam Lanza will stop gun violence?

I'm sorry, when weighing the ethical upside versus the ethical downside of treating people like criminals despite no criminality, we will just disagree. I see little to no upside and a lion's den of downside, the sort of downside that most would ordinarily point to if it was another group of lawful citizens being cast as a "problem" because of something completely out of their control and something which they had no tangible or discernible influence over.

[hcap]

I just want to hit this because I meant to in order clear my own slate of thoughts. These are all things that don't need to be protected in a mutually exclusive fashion, though "privacy" is not an explicit Constitutional protection the way that those outlined in the two other clauses are. In fact, though we do have jurisdictional privacy laws and some federal laws that deal with specific elements (ie HIPAA) of personal protections, in most cases where it has been an issue of privacy vs. first amendment, the Constitutional protection tends to win.

In no way do I agree with another poster that already wants to see litigation because of what the paper did. They are well within their rights to do what they did. That's not an argument even worth pursuing, especially since any potential blowback is purely theoretical. For me, it is simply a matter of using a highly unethical strategy to brand lawful citizens as a problem, and in this case, part of a problem that led to a national tragedy. I won't bother with other such examples of media and people of influence doing such a thing in our history because you'll object automatically, but it isn't just, legal or not. I respect the right to do it and would never argue that they shouldn't have the right to do it, but I would just hope that people can separate themselves from their own biases and see why it is unjust while still being able to concede its legality.I see it as another issue blown way out of proportion by the right wing, and in this case NRA echo chamber. I believe the newspaper acted in the public interest perhaps unwisely--- re: the privacy issue,--- and was indeed motivated by the recent tragedy. Did they do it to sell more papers, maybe, but their intent was not to intentionally bring harm to those gun owners. Did they cast aspersions on innocent gun owners who have yet to be involved in violence? No, but the statistical evidence unfortunately does JUST THAT. That is what you are overlooking. It is not personal, it is just the way it is. To ignore that is silly.

Another case of the right fawning injury. Where non exists

[johnhannibalsmith]

... No, but the statistical evidence unfortunately does JUST THAT. That is what you are overlooking. It is not personal, it is just the way it is. To ignore that is silly.

...

So you favor profiling to prevent crime?

[hcap]

So you favor profiling to prevent crime?
If profiling infringes on the rights of those being profiled, NO. Keeping a public database on statistical evidence that helps deter crime and accidents, is very different. I fail to see how the rights of gun owners are being infringed by letting people know they own guns. They are not being detained, unfairly searched or even being questioned about where they keep, and what they do with their guns. That being said, I do find this could lead to publicizing all sorts of information that could do harm to some at some point.

As I said the issue is overblown by the right, and if you do think otherwise, that gun ownership should be tightly regulated and licensed, then yes car ownership is a fairly decent analogy and model for such regulation.

[Actor]

Thank You ,Clarence. Would it be Darrow or Thomas ? Let me take a guess.Darrow. And you're welcome. :cool:

[HUSKER55]

that list has been around forever. Except when I was a kid we called them phone books. :eek: if you are worried you can arm yourself or move to a better neighborhood ;)

[johnhannibalsmith]

Update:

Putnam County Clerk Dennis Sant said he would defy a request for information about pistol permit holders from the White Plains, New York-based Journal News, which has come under criticism for publishing thousands of such identities already.

"There is the rule of law, and there is right and wrong and the Journal News is clearly wrong," Sant said in a statement. "I could not live with myself if one Putnam pistol permit holder was put in harm's way, for the sole purpose of selling newspapers."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/01/us-usa-guns-newspaper-idUSBRE9000BT20130101