DU gunsters - how do you feel about having newspapers (or online) publish lists of permit holders?

[T Wolf]

If, as I suspect, most of you object - why?

[jeepnstein]

1. It's nobody's business but mine.

I don't understand why it is of any concern to you if I have a valid CCW. That's between me and the Sheriff who issued it.

[atreides1]

2. Ditto

[baldguy]

3. What purpose would it serve?

[T Wolf]

6. For instance - if I knew you had a house full of weapons, I would be more concerned if my child

went over to play with yours. And don't give me some snarky answer like "I wouldn't want my kid playing with some faggot's wimpy offspring."

If I had a chem lab in my home where I created dangerous compounds, would you want to know that?

[jeepnstein]

7. Ask the parent.

I'm a parent, responsible gun owner, and a cop. I don't see any reason not to ask if you have concerns.

[baldguy]

8. If I had a weapon permit that means I have met the states requirements for such.

If my permit is in order, and my weapons are registered (if required) then you have no more right to know about my activities than you do tell me what color to paint my house.

Sounds like you might have a problem with the state.

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

12. I guess ANYONE with an infection disease should listed too...

HIV, Aids, Hepatitis, Tuberculosis :sarcasm:

No, your fear is not a valid fear worth publishing the private life of indiviuals.
If you are concerned, ask. Personally, I would never my child anywhere I have not been to myself.

[baldguy]

13. Sarcasm is an infective disease now?

Damn, I'm in trouble.

[Raskolnik]

22. Yes, I would want to know that. That's why I would take the personal responsibility

to talk to adults who live in the house my child is about to be in prior to that visit. Why do you want the government to do your parenting for you?

[T Wolf]

24. You are assuming they will tell the truth. And no - I do not want the government

parenting my children. But if there is information that I can have access to in order to protect them, I damn sure want to know that.

[Raskolnik]

26. So it's for the *children*. Do you want a government to give you a list of who has trampolines,

swimming pools, lots of knives, power tools, and prescription medicine? If your goal is to protect children, why shouldn't the government also publish a house-by-house listing of those items?

[iverglas]

68. note to Raskolnik

Make up your mind.

IT'S FOR THE WIMMIN -- valid gunhead argument.

IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN -- not valid gun control argument.

Your sister, or your mother?

[Raskolnik]

94. note to iverglas

IT'S FOR THE WIMMIN -- may or may not be a valid argument, depending on the point being made.

IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN -- may or may not be a valid argument, depending on the point being made.

Do you see how that works? Context matters. The argument being made matters. While you clearly think you own all issues concerning women, children, minorities, and gay folks and have the right to determine who is allowed to discuss these issues, I must inform you that it is not the case.

[iverglas]

95. return memo

I just thought you might want to read what you wrote, in case you missed it.

You might want to bookmark it so that next time an advocate of gun control is mocked for expressing concern about the harm done to children with firearms, you can use it again.

Here you are.

------------------------------------------------------------

IT'S FOR THE WIMMIN -- may or may not be a valid argument, depending on the point being made.

IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN -- may or may not be a valid argument, depending on the point being made.

Do you see how that works? Context matters. The argument being made matters.

------------------------------------------------------------

As for the rest:

While you clearly think you own all issues concerning women, children, minorities, and gay folks and have the right to determine who is allowed to discuss these issues, I must inform you that it is not the case.

it's just the standard ad locutorem, and false, invective used in attempts to discredit speakers rather than refute speech.

Carry on.

[Raskolnik]

96. You just said nothing. n/t

[benEzra]

41. The same argument could be made about publishing what medications are in your home,

publishing whether your home contains porn (and what kinds), and so on. And from a burglarly standpoint, would you post a list of YOUR valuables online, using your real name and address? Might as well call it stealmystuff.com or somesuch.

If you don't want your child to play with my children simply because my wife and I have a gun safe in the home and are licensed and competent to carry a firearm as authorized by law, fine; ask. But publishing our family's personal info for anyone to see, no.

[jmg257]

52. Easy enough - just ask! They most likely wouldn't want your kid there either,

seeing as how offensive it is to you. No big deal, really.

[tularetom]

4. I object to having my name on a published list of Macintosh users.

Whether or not I use a particular brand of computer, go to a particular church (or none at all), or hold a concealed carry permit is nobody's friggin business but mine.

[county worker]

5. Why should they?

Seems like another idea from the gun grabber lobby.

[T Wolf]

10. There is NO connection between wanting to know about the presence of weapons in a home

or on a person and being a "gun grabber." Straw man argument.

I am strictly talking about the information being accessible to neighbors and others who may be directly, and fatally, affected by the weapon.

If I knew someone owned dangerous objects (guns, chemicals - as in my example, radioactive minerals, whatever...), I would be at least a little wary of (a) letting my kids be in that home unsupervised, (b) going to a party there where drinking (which is directly linked to violent behavior) will occur, or (c) "confronting" that neighbor if they did something un-neighborly (e.g., stole my paper or dumped their trash in my yard).

Another example - if I had a history of mental illness (no criminal record so we do not get side-tracked by the legal-illegal action issue), would you want to know that before a, b, or c above?

[X_Digger]

16. Sounds like social pressure to me..

Ways to ostracize your neighbors without actually having to get to know them.

[county worker]

31. Yes there is. This law is so much like the attempts to limit abortion.

It's from the same group who want to totally ban abortion.

It is incremental law making.

Also it is a law, like gun laws that the people you have nothing to fear from obey and the ones you should fear won't obey.

It smacks of the ideas behind posting pictures of people who rent porn or something.

I really doubt what you say is your real motive.

Make a law that says someone who is obeying the law should be named in a public place? Only a gun grabber would think of such a thing.

[T Wolf]

40. Those wanting to control the epidemic of gun violence are the same ones who want to

interfere in a woman's right to control her own body?

Are you fucking crazy? It is you gun nuts who want to take the US back to the days of back alley abortions, no birth control, etc...

[county worker]

47. No I didn't say that. I said the laws in their methodology are similar.

Like this. Someone who wants to outlaw all abortions but can't has laws past that make it harder to get abortions even though they are legal. For instance parental notification.

Someone who wants to ban all guns has laws past making it harder to own or carry them. For instance putting names in the paper as if they were common criminals!


Also saying you are for life is similar to saying you are for controlling gun violence in it's methodology.

Both are, in the mind of the law writer, a good yet the laws they want to write will not have the intended effect but only makes the law writer feel good that they did something.

You give your motives away the more that you write. I'm sure you are a gun grabber. Gun nuts?

My owning a gun and maybe having a CCW permit is none of your damed business just as what a woman does with her body is none of your damned business.

You are a good DUer I can see, defining your opposition in terms that are false to try and win a debate. I see it a lot here. It a sort of left wing facism.

Comprende?

[T Wolf]

53. "It's from the same group who want to totally ban abortion."

[county worker]

57. I should have said, so sorry!

It is like the laws limiting abortion. They are from the same group who want to totally ban abortion.

[jmg257]

50. Yep. I know that's next on my to do list, right after "buy more guns" and "buy more ammo".

and right before "don't pay taxes"

:silly:

[pipoman]

86. You do of coarse realize there is no "epidemic" don't you?

If there were in fact an epidemic of 'gun violence' only an idiot wouldn't want to protect themselves from this epidemic. Further to your flamebait OP, why do you wish to spend mega tax money to publish the names of people who are demonstrably less likely to commit this gun violence you so fear than even law enforcement? Is it that you seceretly want criminals to case the homes of these law abiding gun owners, waiting for them to leave so they can steal guns to commit even more crime with?

It is you gun nuts who want to take the US back to the days of back alley abortions, no birth control, etc...

Your cover is blown...you sir, or ma'am are blinded by silliness, stereotypes, and ignorance.

[Duke Newcombe]

100. And "Pop!" goes the agenda. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

70. So you want to involuntarily publish lists of people who have ever had a mental illness?

Did I read that right?

if I had a history of mental illness (no criminal record so we do not get side-tracked by the legal-illegal action issue), would you want to know that before a, b, or c above?

It is not the general public's business whether you have a history of mental illness or not. If you are a danger, you will be involuntarily committed, ajudicated mentally defective, or whatever your state calls it, and whatever process your state has. Beyond that, no, the public does not need to know about your personal medical history. That could actually be counterproductive to these people recovering from their illness.

I PERSONALLY don't mind if everyone knows I have a permit. But I can easily see why most people would not want that information to be publicized.

What next, listing people like me with a fishing license, so PETA can come bother me about my food choices?

[Uben]

9. I have 19 guns....

...and I have no permits, and none of them are registered. All were purchased pre-1970, and none of them are in any way assault weapons. The reason they are not registered is because it is no one's business that I have them. They are kept under lock and key, unloaded, and none have been fired in over 15 yrs. Why do I have them? They were inherited and I intend to pass them down to my grandkids someday. Several are collectible and are worth thousands of dollars.

If you don't like it, well, tough shit! That's the way I want it, and your desires do not factor in to that equation. Letting someone know I have them only hurts me. The government cannot take away something they do not know exists.

[T Wolf]

15. I keep poison snakes in my home. But I will not tell you that so if they bite your kid, tough shit.

You can keep a goddamned arsenal in your house - I just want to know of possible dangers in my neighborhood.

[Statistical]

19. My guns have never bit anyone. Not seeing the analogy.

[T Wolf]

23. My snakes haven't either, yet. It's the potential for danger that is the issue. Why do we

force people who own swimming pools to have a fence around it? To protect against accidents.

You would hold that it should be OK for me to have a pool with no fence and no lights. So, if a kid wanders in at night and drowns, tough shit.

[Statistical]

27. No kid will wander into my gunsafe and drown though....

if you believe people should be held liable for storing weapons negligently that is one thing.

AIDS/HIV kills a magnitude more people than firearms.

Why not making a national registry of HIV infected persons?
Think of how many people you would save from infection and eventual death.

Back it up with annual testing, make it searchable, put it online.
Someone goes on a date and then can look up their partner right from their iPhone.

My wife has a CCW. She also works in mental health & substance abuse as a counselor.
She has had to testify to take children away from parents that abused them or raped them.
Many of them today still blame her for "taking their kids away".

Many of them are mentally unstable. A couple have threatened to kill her.
Our address/phone number is unlisted for a reason.
She has two cellphones (one for work, one for home).
Work one isn't conected to her in anyway.
The home one she never uses for work.

Thankfully privacy is protected in VA.
Privacy is a progressive idea.

Hard to have a witch hunt with privacy getting in the way though.

[Raskolnik]

21. Do you want a public registry of poisonous snakes as well?

What about drain cleaner and swimming pools? Those two kill far, far more kids every year than firearms, so why shouldn't I have a right to know if you have either of those in your home?

[shraby]

11. That would be an open invitation for thieves to

break in to steal guns to use in crimes and leave at the scene or not. The gun could be traced to the person it was stolen from.

[T Wolf]

14. But I thought all you "responsible" gun owners kept them under lock and key. So, unless

a thief knew where it was, it probably would not be stolen. Another straw man argument.

Besides, if you report it stolen, you are off the hook. But then, the NRA party line is that you should not even have to report stolen weapons, so I guess you would rather have your guns out there running free.

[Statistical]

18. Yeah everyone loves having their house broken into for no reason.

It is fun and "you are off the hook".

[jmg257]

39. Yep - easy to hide that huge gun safe from thieves who KNOW there is one there.

And yep #2, I know all I worry about with regards to my guns being stolen is that I am "off the hook" when I report them as such.

No value there, no worry being unarmed for a few weeks, and certainly no issue replacing them. Hey - I will just buy more!

:silly:

[spin]

48. Not everybody can afford a gun safe...

that will resist a professional thief. Most gun safes are designed to keep kids and amateurs from stealing your weapons.

So if a list of permit holders were published, the guns might be stored properly but could still end up stolen.

And the professional thief will probably find more dangerous buyers for the stolen weapons.

[yay]

93. Yup

Yup they just stole a several hundred dollar piece of equipment, I just report it stolen and away we go. Because you know I always have several hundred dollars to replace the gun. That's not even taking into account any damage to my house, or persons in my house.

Not to mention they would have to break the safe, since not everyone can afford a $2000-4000 reinforced steel safe, let alone have room for it just to store a handgun and maybe a shotgun. Even "sheet metal" safes are a $500-700 and wouldn't offer hardly any protection against a determined thief.

But you know "STRAW MAN!!!! STRAW MAN STRAW MAN STRAW MAN!!!!!!!"

[Statistical]

17. Spouse abusers would love your plan

Husband beats wife
Wife runs away
Wife gets help from shelter and moves to unknown location
Wife is afraid so she gets a CCW
The "T Wolf Spouse Murder Bill" enables publishing private CCW data.
Husband finds wife's new address and murders/rapes/abuses her.

Yay. Progressives for the win!
Abused women don't have a right to PRIVACY AND SELF-DEFENSE.
They only get one or the other.

[slackmaster]

20. It's extremely irresponsible, and I'll give you two big reasons

1. Many people carry weapons because they have been threatened or stalked, or assaulted, robbed, or raped in the past. Publishing their names makes them vulnerable to their attackers.

2. Some people carry weapons because they transport valuables or cash. Publishing their names makes it possible for robbers to target them for the purpose of taking those items and/or their guns.

[T Wolf]

25. I call total BULLSHIT on both of those. Criminals will look to attack armed people?

It seems to me that they would target those without weapons.

Or, are you saying that being armed makes a person more likely to become a victim? Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

Or do you get off on the idea of springing your phallic-standin on an unsuspecting aggressor, or someone who just pisses you off?

[slackmaster]

28. Publishing someone's name as a state permit holder establishes that they live in the state

It could make it difficult for someone who is trying to conceal his or her location.

Or, are you saying that being armed makes a person more likely to become a victim? Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

I think you are unclear on the concept of "concealed" weapons.

Or do you get off on the idea of springing your phallic-standin on an unsuspecting aggressor, or someone who just pisses you off?

I love that sexy talk! :D

[FLAprogressive]

34. it took this long for someone to equate gun ownership with penises? Wow.

must be a record.

[slackmaster]

42. You can be sure he was planning to do that all along

Just looking for an entry point to introduce his obsession into the conversation.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

83. More gun grabber penis infatuation, never fails.

[Statistical]

29. Random violence is not the same thing as directed violence.

Would criminals look to try and suprise armed citizens to take their guns... probably not.
Would the try and break in when nobody is hope to rob the place.... they might.

On the other hand there is TARGETED VIOLENCE.

An abusive husband is looking to randomly abuse women in a neighborhood. He is looking for his wife. The wife may be trying to keep her location a SECRET from her husband.

Someone looking to attack their doctor/mental health counselor/lawyer/bail bondman etc for some real or imagined crime isn't looking to attack some random gun owner they are looking to attack a specific person.

A person they might not otherwise find. Your "registry" would enable them to find their SPECIFIC victim.

[jmg257]

46. Hey! More penis and gun equating! There is help, ya know...

Are you afraid, or just disappointed in yours, or maybe a friends? Abused as a child? Embarrassed maybe?

"Fear Of Penis?
Feelings of dread? Overwhelming thoughts? Rapid heartbeat? Tunnel vision? Worse?

We have never met a case of fear of penis that couldn’t be overcome. If you are ready to conquer the fear once and for all, CTRN promises you:
• Diminished Fear and Anxiety in a Day
• Absolute Anonymity and Security
• Clients in 67 Countries"

Good luck!

[FLAprogressive]

69. it's the only thing they can do. nt

[bossy22]

30. its plain wrong

and if journalism doesnt want to police its self in regards to its own conduct maybe its time for the legislature to do it

There is no benefit to publishing this information- only harm may come of it.

how would you like it if they published the names of anyone who has been arrested in your town for any reason....do you think thats right?

Journalists are given a great power, and with that great power comes great responsibility- the responsibility to not abuse or misuse this power to cause harm is one of them. This isnt saying that they shouldnt publish stuff which may hurt someone, but they shouldnt publish things that has no purpose and only causes harm.

[T Wolf]

32. Why is there such a push for some offenders IDs to be published, e.g. sexual predators?

Supposedly to protect the public. I actually think that if one kind of convicted criminal, not "anyone who has been arrested", is identified publicly, all should be.

[FLAprogressive]

33. LOL now you're equating gun owners to sexual predators. This my friends is your average gun grabber.

[T Wolf]

36. I GIVE UP. It seems that those who love guns and the violence they produce will not agree with

any limits on their "constitutional" rights. Although I do expect you all to join the National Guard or the regular military (that militia thing).

In the shoot-em-up culture of America, I am very aware of the sacred place that many place on their weaponry. I just wonder if there should be NO rules concerning alerting the public about possible dangerous (or not) items that individuals might possess. Let's just let caveat emptor be our guideline for everything.

I know that you all sleep (and walk around) better knowing that you can kill anything that annoys you, I just want to be able to avoid you.

[FLAprogressive]

38. ok iverglas.

[T Wolf]

45. Who the fuck is iverglas?

[iverglas]

63. I'm hurt

I'm an icon. Everybody knows who I am. I get onto someone's "top ten DUmmies" list every year. There's even a reference to how someone can "play the iverglas" if s/he likes in some RW/gunhead forum around the net. I have a large and active fan club, both here and elsewhere. Sniff.

The only problem here is that I don't actually agree with you. But a few facts never interfere in a good gunhead screed.

I'm opposed to the disclosure of personal information without consent or without justification. That includes the submission of mental health information to the NICS database, and it would include the publication of information about permits to carry concealed weapons. Simply because information like names and addresses that has to be provided to government agencies in order to obtain permits necessary for an activity is still personal information, just as my tax return and the information submitted for my driver's licence are.

If I was offered a proposed justification for publication, I'd consider it. I'd also consider whether there were other considerations that overrode the consideration (such as the possibility of individuals being targeted because of their known ownership of firearms).

The main thing here is that these permits are held by a very small fraction of firearms owners in the US. If one is concerned about firearms in a home where one's child is visiting, knowing (by elimination) that the householder doesn't have a concealed weapons permit isn't going to tell you that s/he doesn't have a gun.

They say treat all guns as if they were loaded. I think that if I lived in the US I would treat all homes as if they had firearms in them and only allow my child to visit there if I had actively sought and received assurances there were none (or, in communities where it is to be expected there will be firearms for rural purposes, e.g., assurances that they are secured and locked so as to be inaccessible, and that the householders take all possible steps to ensure that their children and other children do not have an interest in getting hold of them and are unable to do so). And I would treat all my neighbours as if they were armed to the teeth.


typo fixed

[jmg257]

43. "there should be NO rules concerning alerting the public.. " NOW YOU got it!!

[Raskolnik]

49. "I just want to be able to avoid you." See? I knew we could find common ground!

If you don't want to be friends with people that have guns, you don't have to. Just like you don't have to be friends with Jewish people, people that eat corn on the cob the wrong way*, people with swimming pools, and people who end phone conversations with "any-whoo."

That's that wonderful thing about America, isn't it?


*I consider "typewriter" style to be insane, and I will be in the cold, cold ground before I change my mind

[county worker]

51. Guns produce violence? Gee all the guns in the gun store are committing acts of violence.

Call 911!

[jmg257]

54. Not sure about others, but I am quite content being part of the "unorganized militia".

Of course that has nothing to do with my rights and choice to own guns for self-defense, sporting and other lawful purposes, but you brought it up!

[bossy22]

60. exercising your second amendment rights

is in no way contingent on membership in an organized militia

read D.C. V Heller

[AtheistCrusader]

72. The National Guard didn't exist till the 1930's, and the Army is not the Militia.

Try again.

Also, explain how allowing the people to remain armed, because the militia is formed FROM the people, means the people must ALWAYS be in the militia, or have no guns?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. Good thing the Constitution is on our side.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

85. Please avoid us and don't come back.

[one-eyed fat man]

98. Been there, done that

26 years active duty, service in 2 wars, and all that goes with that. As an Army retiree I am subject to recall to active duty at any time.

At one time, upon retirement from the US Army you got to keep your weapon, pity that tradition didn't continue.

Or do you think that 2nd Amendment means I am only supposed to shoot what the government tells me to?

[X_Digger]

37. None..

I agree. Drop these stupid lists.

But then again, those are folks who have done something illegal. Are you drawing some kind of parallel between CCW holders and felons?

[jmg257]

44. Sounds good. Go for it! If such people pose such danger to the public,

why are they even out of jail, then?

[slackmaster]

74. Registered sexual predators are people who busted the social contract knowing the consequences

The consequences included jail time and being required to register.

I actually think that if one kind of convicted criminal, not "anyone who has been arrested", is identified publicly, all should be.

You already have that. Criminal records that have not been sealed by a court of law are accessible to the public.

[benEzra]

35. Should a woman who flees a stalker, moves to an unlisted address,

and obtains a carry license for protection from said stalker, have her name and home address published for the stalker to read? And warn him to change his tactics so that he doesn't get surprised by his intended victim?

Would you publish the name and home address of the abortion provider or political activist who obtains a CHL because some nut wants to kill him in God's name?

Such lists also serve as shopping lists for gun thieves; they may be less likely to attack while you're home, but giving them a shopping list with home addresses would certainly let them troll until they find listed individuals who aren't home.

The only place I'd be OK with publishing names (and not addresses) of CHL holders would be in those few jurisdictions where CHL's are handed out as political favors to the wealthy and politically connected (NYC, San Francisco, etc.), only to expose the hypocrisy of those who hold a CHL themselves but oppose the "little people" having them.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[county worker]

58. If you are afraid of someone call the police. They will make sure the person is obeying the law.

I know of a true life example of what you are saying. I knew a guy who use to sell weapons he got from out of the country. He would order them and store them at his house trying to sell them.. This is before most of our gun laws were passed. He also loaded ammo. One day he was unpacking one of the rifles he ordered and it was loaded. It went off and blew his finger off and lodged in his neighbor's garage.

The neighbor called the cops and when they came out they found that the guy had enough black powder in his garage to blow a couple of houses away.

They arrested him. Now I know this guy would not obey any law you could dream up.

[Raskolnik]

59. This is the most out-of-line post I have seen in a while. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Callisto32]

61. The ignorance is deafening....even in type.

1. Assuming one is a bigot because of his rural home, and disapproving of bigotry is.....bigotry!
2. There are cities where only the politically powerful and well connected seem to be able to get guns. This has nothing to do with race, and if you get down to it, if you made it more objective when deciding who can get a weapons permit, you would likely put more legal, legitimate weapons into the hands of poor minorities.
3. How do you know that the concern for women is not feigned. I and my mother were victims of an abusive man and I have a great deal of concern for the abused women AND men of the world. I am also pro-gun. The two are not mutually exclusive, and to suggest so is to present the false dichotomy "you either are concerned for the abused, or you like guns." This kind of argument is a logical fallacy and holds no water.

[benEzra]

62. I believe people of all ethnicities with clean records should be allowed to own guns...

I was speaking directly to recent publication of CHL lists by a couple of major newspapers, which "outed" a number of abused women who were in hiding, and yes, abortion providers have CHL's all out of proportion to the population at large (and with damn good reason).

I also support the right of people regardless of ethnicity and gender to have the right to choose to own and responsibly use a firearm whether or not they live in a city, and to obtain a carry license even if they are not wealthy or politically connected.

Here's an example as valid as yours (feigning concern for women) - Should a parent not be told that an alcoholic psycho with 19 guns is living next door who likes to leave his/her loaded high-volume weapons laying around? After all, they have that right to have a deadly arsenal. Wouldn't want to inhibit them from shooting at imaginary burglars or showing off their guns to the neighborhood children.

An "alcoholic psycho" who leaves "19 loaded high-volume weapons" lying around within reach of children is probably already violating multiple laws and can be arrested. But of course the only way to know if the parent(s) of your child's playmates are alcoholic psychos with loaded guns lying on the floor is for you to, you know, actually visit them, as a parent. Get to know your children's friends and their families. What a novel concept.

But even in your rather silly example, how would you make a list of "alcoholic psychos"? You can't, of course; that was a red herring. You are really aiming at the lawful and responsible.

(And WTF is a "high volume weapon"?)



----------------------
The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Thoughts on Gun Ownership

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[iverglas]

64. IT'S FOR THE WIMMIN!

Find a new tune, won't you?

[Raskolnik]

67. Note to all DUers: only iverglas is allowed to use violence against women as a

justification for firearm policy.

[iverglas]

71. earth to Raskolnik

Violence against women IS a justification for tightly regulated firearms possession.

[Raskolnik]

73. Exactly. You own the issue of abuse against women. It's yours.

When other people discuss it, it's exploitative, but when you use to suit your argument, it's justified.

IT'S FOR THE WIMMIN!

[iverglas]

75. well there actually is that teeny weeny little difference

me being a woman, and victim of violence and all.

I get to speak for me, you see. I can never figure out why all the boyz hereabouts seem to think I and the rest of us need them speaking for us. You all sound so funny with those squeaky little voices you put on when you talk about violence against women, and reproductive choice. Not to mention how you all do that funny shuffling when you talk about violence against people of colour. And then there are all those limp wrists when you wax all concerned about the GLBT folk you're all so devoted to.

I pretty much think that if any of us wanted what you so generously want for us, there'd be a lot more of us here saying so, speaking in our own voices and being ourselves instead, instead of having some strange effigies of ourselves propped up to speak for us. Let me get my glasses ... nope, nope, not seeing us.

Forum full of you know whats, busting out in worry about the non-male, non-white, non-straight, non-strong people of the planet.

Warms the cockles of the heart, it does.

If the churning of the gut weren't drowning out the warm fuzzies we oughta be feeling at all that concern.

[Raskolnik]

76. Oh, you've been very clear: you speak for all women everywhere

And you're also the arbiter of who is allowed to care about violence against minorities and gay folks.

Are you sure you aren't tired from carrying such a burden? It's got to be exhausting to have so many groups that can't get by without your looking after them.





edit syntax

[FLAprogressive]

77. I wonder what it's like to be on such a pedestal.....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

82. Iverglas can tell you.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

81. You don't think much of female victims who disagree with you, so there must be another criteria.

[DrCory]

102. What Do You Mean By "Shuffling"?

"Not to mention how you all do that funny shuffling when you talk about violence against people of colour."

Care to clarify?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. Someone has to care about them.

[Indy Lurker]

56. bad idea

This is as bad as having access to DMV records, Tag number, Name, and Address.

For those claiming a neighbor with a CCW is dangerous, I trust you have some data to back that claim.

[paulsby]

66. it's contrary to the data, actually

CCW holders have a LOWER crime rate than the population at large.

i am referring especially to violent crime.

[jody]

65. IMO papers should publish lists of how much jewelery people own. n/t

[TheWraith]

78. It depends on whether there's legitimate news involved.

For instance, here in New York, FOIA requests have shown that in New York City, celebrities and politicians are given concealed carry permits with little scrutiny while almost no "regular" people are allowed. That's a valid use, because it shows corruption in the system. Another example would be if, say, an issuing official was providing permits disproportionately to his friends and family.

Otherwise, I see no value in it. Besides being an invasion of people's privacy, it offers a ready-made list of targets for anyone who wants to try and steal a gun.

[yay]

79. I believe it's called CONCEALED carry for a reason...

Kinda defeats the point if anyone and their mother can know. Not to mention a nice little list of where the guns are.

[pipoman]

87. Seems to me this thread is far more "flame bait" than other

recently closed threads...is it just the flame is shooting the right way this time?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

88. Interesting observation.

[Jamastiene]

89. I don't own a gun, currently, but

I do like them. I don't see the point in publishing people's names. What reason could they possibly have for doing that?

[yay]

90. They own guns, obviustly they are criminals.

Just owning a gun is enough for some people

[old mark]

91. I live in PA, and it is illegal to post or disseminate such a list.

The previous county sheriff was sued for using the list of LTCF holders as a mailing list to solicit voters.

It is already on the police computers, why should it be public knowledge - who would want to know or even care?

Are you again associating gun ownership with criminal intentions or bahavior?

Why?

mark

[old mark]

92. Gunsters? nt

[one-eyed fat man]

97. Didn't a couple of newspapers howl

and have a crew of high-priced law firms run to get injunctions when a concealed carry group posted their editors' and publishers' names and phone numbers on line in response?

Toledo Blade and Cleveland Plain Dealer??

Seems the gander didn't like the same sauce they dished out to the goose.

Never mind the folks hiding from abusive spouse, who now had their new address posted..........

There is at least one wrongful death suit pending over that little troublesome unintended consequence in Indiana.

[Taitertots]

99. The reasonable test

If you replace permit holders with any other behavior is it going to make sense.

Publish the names of people who purchase or watch pornography.

Publish the names of everyone who had an abortion.

Publish the names of everyone who bought a katana.

Publish the names of everyone who gets speeding tickets.

[Township75]

101. Here are 2 reasons

An OH newspaper listed all those with CCW permits shortly after that state became right-to-carry. One person on that list was later murdered. Turned out he worked with police to get either a drug dealer or a mafia member (I can't remember) put in jail. THe killers found his name and address in the paper and that was all they needed to find him. He applied for a CCW permit once he began helping police.

In VA, a Roanoke woman wrote a letter to a newspaper that she had a restraining order against her ex husband and moved her and her children away from him. She got a CCW for protection due to his threats. After the paper printed her name and address her ex may know where she lives so she has to move again.

If it's a public record than any newspaper can do it, I just have to question why. Perhaps there are some great stories about how printing the names helped in some way, but I haven't heard them. I can't see how this information helps the public anymore than if newspapers printed who was registered to what party.

[DrCory]

103. So Much For The "Public Safety" Argument. N/T