Gene Frenkle Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 I think it's wrong that the newspaper publishes this information though regardless of what VA's paranoia. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I think it could be argued that the public has a right to know such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I think it could be argued that the public has a right to know such things. Just as Spike Lee had a right to tweet George Zimmerman's home address? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I think it could be argued that the public has a right to know such things. My biggest isn't really a foreign invader. It's more like when the revolution started and the British knew who had all of the weapons as they had to be registered. If the US government really jumps the shark some day and a public uprising is called for, having an armed citizentry is going to really be the only way to balance things. I have issues with the government knowing everything, let alone all of the other psychos in the world knowing where and who has what weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 If Democrats were even the slightest bit competent the NRA wouldn't have as big a voice as they do with regard to gun control. America's inner-cities are replete with daily gun violence and murder but where are the Democrats? Obama contemplates people who cling to guns and religion but does nothing effective with regard to the Chicago murder rate. There's 350 armed New York City police officers in tne New York City school system. How many more in other urban school systems? Anyhow, in 2000 former President Bill Clinton proposed a "COPs In School" program. http://www.bizpacreview.com/2012/12/23/media-forgets-bill-clintons-call-for-cops-in-school-12131 Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for “COPS in School,” a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities. “Already, it has placed 2,200 officers in more than 1,000 communities across our nation, where they are heightening school safety as well as coaching sports and acting as mentors and mediators for kids in need,” Clinton said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 How !@#$ing paranoid are you people? The Russians will not be parachuting in to invade our high schools anytime soon. The British are not coming. Jesus you've never met many avid gun "sportsmen" have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 How !@#$ing paranoid are you people? The Russians will not be parachuting in to invade our high schools anytime soon. The British are not coming. Jesus I'm no gun fan, but this is your response from the actions of the newspaper? Really?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Reflections on Newtown: A week after an American tragedy, what have we learned? Excerpt: Is Hate A Liberal Value? A 20-year-old lunatic stole some guns and killed people. Who’s to blame? According to a lot of our supposedly rational and tolerant opinion leaders, it’s . . . the NRA, a civil-rights organization whose only crime was to oppose laws banning guns. (Ironically, it wasn’t even successful in Connecticut, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.) The hatred was intense. One Rhode Island professor issued a call — later deleted — for NRA head Wayne LaPierre’s “head on a stick.” People like author Joyce Carol Oates and actress Marg Helgenberger wished for NRA members to be shot. So did Texas Democratic Party official John Cobarruvias, who also called the NRA a “terrorist organization,” and Texas Republican congressman Louis Gohmert a “terror baby.” Nor were reporters, who are supposed to be neutral, much better. As The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg commented, “Reporters on my Twitter feed seem to hate the NRA more than anything else, ever. ” Calling people murderers and wishing them to be shot sits oddly with claims to be against violence. The NRA — like the ACLU, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers or Planned Parenthood — exists to advocate policies its members want. It’s free speech. The group-hate directed at the NRA is ugly and says ugly things about those consumed by it. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 I'm no gun fan, but this is your response from the actions of the newspaper? Really?? No, that's my response to VA's paranoid: "And if we ever do have a foreign enemy come to our shows we just told them who to target first." The newspaper is probably out of line, but the public does has a right to this information, as part of the Freedom of Information Act, I believe. Just as Spike Lee had a right to tweet George Zimmerman's home address? In Canada or the US? I'm not sure what the law says about that. Are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 No, that's my response to VA's paranoid: "And if we ever do have a foreign enemy come to our shows we just told them who to target first." The newspaper is probably out of line, but the public does has a right to this information, as part of the Freedom of Information Act, I believe. Probably? ughh Down the slippery slope we go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Probably? ughh Down the slippery slope we go That's my opinion. What is definite, for now, is your right to bear arms and my right to know about it should you choose to exercise that right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 That's my opinion. What is definite, for now, is your right to bear arms and my right to know about it should you choose to exercise that right. Why is it important for you to know who has a legal right to carry a gun? Specially considering that those who are legally able to carry a gun are much more apt to not commit a crime than those who aren't. That's a fact. If anything, all this did other than needlessly agitate people was make homeowners who are not on the list more of a target than those listed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Why is it important for you to know who has a legal right to carry a gun? Specially considering that those who are legally able to carry a gun are much more apt to not commit a crime than those who aren't. That's a fact. If anything, all this did other than needlessly agitate people was make homeowners who are not on the list more of a target than those listed. Why is it important to me? Well first, because it is my RIGHT to know, which should vaguely familiar. I don't think that my NOT being on the list would drive the chances of my house or family being targeted by violent criminals statistically high enough to start obsessing about. I certainly don't want my kids playing at a house that contains guns, as they are much more likely to be shot accidentally in such a house. If I have a neighbor, friend or relative who I see progressively going off the deep end, it would be nice to know if that person is packing. These reasons may be based on some far-fetched scenarios, but no more far-fetched than owning a gun to "protect-my-family" or as a "check against government". I do see the argument against publication, which is why I said the publication of such information was "probably out of line". Only "probably", because gun guy's right to privacy does not trump my right to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Next time you see Big Brother, let him know I said Hi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) i'm still trying to figure out what people need semi automatic weapons for. anchorage says he needs them for riots. practically, wouldn't the best thing to do in the very common event of a riot be to stay in your locked house with a shotgun at the ready? with jim out there laying cover, it's pretty likely there might be some innocents killed or injured. isn't quelling riots really the job of law enforcement? then we've got va getting ready for an imminent russian attack. not bloody likely but if they did come, the guy shooting an ar 15 at them is gonna be a prime target and is very unlikely to make much of a difference. on meet the press, lindsay graham came out in support of assault weapons last sunday, stating he had an ar 15 at home. rather than arguing the merits of gun control, i think the journalist should have asked him, "why do you need that gun"? lacking better answers than riots and invasions i think a sizable majority of the american public will conclude that the risks of these weapons outweigh whatever benefits proponents can conjure up. Edited December 26, 2012 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Next time you see Big Brother, let him know I said Hi. I'll let him know at our next NWO meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 (edited) http://christopherfo...-for-the-goose/ Wanna know the private info of all those working at The Journal? Edited December 26, 2012 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 i'm still trying to figure out what people need semi automatic weapons for. anchorage says he needs them for riots. practically, wouldn't the best thing to do in the very common event of a riot be to stay in your locked house with a shotgun at the ready? with jim out there laying cover, it's pretty likely there might be some innocents killed or injured. isn't quelling riots really the job of law enforcement? then we've got va getting ready for an imminent russian attack. not bloody likely but if they did come, the guy shooting an ar 15 at them is gonna be a prime target and is very unlikely to make much of a difference. on meet the press, lindsay graham came out in support of assault weapons last sunday, stating he had an ar 15 at home. rather than arguing the merits of gun control, i think the journalist should have asked him, "why do you need that gun"? lacking better answers than riots and invasions i think a sizable majority of the american public will conclude that the risks of these weapons outweigh whatever benefits proponents can conjure up. Why do you need to smoke? Have a 60 inch TV? Have 2 cars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 i'm still trying to figure out what people need semi automatic weapons for. anchorage says he needs them for riots. practically, wouldn't the best thing to do in the very common event of a riot be to stay in your locked house with a shotgun at the ready? with jim out there laying cover, it's pretty likely there might be some innocents killed or injured. isn't quelling riots really the job of law enforcement? then we've got va getting ready for an imminent russian attack. not bloody likely but if they did come, the guy shooting an ar 15 at them is gonna be a prime target and is very unlikely to make much of a difference. on meet the press, lindsay graham came out in support of assault weapons last sunday, stating he had an ar 15 at home. rather than arguing the merits of gun control, i think the journalist should have asked him, "why do you need that gun"? lacking better answers than riots and invasions i think a sizable majority of the american public will conclude that the risks of these weapons outweigh whatever benefits proponents can conjure up. With all due respect, its not your !@#$ing business why I "need" anything that (right now) is legal to obtain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 With all due respect, its not your !@#$ing business why I "need" anything that (right now) is legal to obtain. True, not why. But certainly if. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Why do you need to smoke? Have a 60 inch TV? Have 2 cars? cuz 60 inch tv's and priuses have been so often used in multiple murders... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts