Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if anything, this might actually backfire in the journals face. criminals now know who not to do crime against and where the gun free homes are. less of a chance of getting shot.
There are people who try and take steps to hide from people. For example, someone who had to take a restraining order out.......
I think any woman with a restaining order against a man who is prone to violence would agree that's just chance we must take as a free society to protect the People's Right To Know.
I think any woman with a restaining order against a man who is prone to violence would agree that's just chance we must take as a free society to protect the People's Right To Know.
This isn't a question of the right to know but rather of the need to know and irresponsible jounalism. What purpose did the paper have in printing the names and addresses of people "LAWFULLY" owning a firearm. What was the point they were trying to achieve here by printing it? What other information should the paper print about people in the community? After all, we have the right to know. We have the right to know all of your personal information. Should it be printed as well? It's public information. How about your marital status and number and sex of children? Should that be printed? It's public information.. Then every preditor will know if you are a single parent with potentially latch key kids. Why not print that on the front page of the NY Times? Why not print your driving and criminal record in the paper? Why not print your voting record? It's all public record. Irresponsible to print it, yes, but it is public record.
This isn't a question of the right to know but rather of the need to know and irresponsible jounalism. What purpose did the paper have in printing the names and addresses of people "LAWFULLY" owning a firearm. What was the point they were trying to achieve here by printing it? What other information should the paper print about people in the community? After all, we have the right to know. We have the right to know all of your personal information. Should it be printed as well? It's public information. How about your marital status and number and sex of children? Should that be printed? It's public information.. Then every preditor will know if you are a single parent with potentially latch key kids. Why not print that on the front page of the NY Times? Why not print your driving and criminal record in the paper? Why not print your voting record? It's all public record. Irresponsible to print it, yes, but it is public record.
I was being sarcastic. Thanks for the reminder to add the
Where I am, if a woman or I guess anyone has an active protection order then their address is NOT published anywhere.
When they apply for government permits (voting card, driver's license, etc) they can supply the protective order and the address becomes confidential. Even to the state's version of the FOIA.
This isn't a question of the right to know but rather of the need to know and irresponsible jounalism. What purpose did the paper have in printing the names and addresses of people "LAWFULLY" owning a firearm. What was the point they were trying to achieve here by printing it? What other information should the paper print about people in the community? After all, we have the right to know. We have the right to know all of your personal information. Should it be printed as well? It's public information. How about your marital status and number and sex of children? Should that be printed? It's public information.. Then every preditor will know if you are a single parent with potentially latch key kids. Why not print that on the front page of the NY Times? Why not print your driving and criminal record in the paper? Why not print your voting record? It's all public record. Irresponsible to print it, yes, but it is public record.
Good point. IMO the purpose was simple harassment.
Now, if the paper obtained the list from NYC and cross-referenced that list with people who make high-$ donations to certain politicians' election coffers, that would be useful info.
"When I saw the list, I had an immediate flood of emotions that I cannot even describe to you," said (Orangetown resident Charlotte) Swift. "I originally obtained a gun permit because I had previously been married to a man who attempted to strangle me . . . The first emotion I felt was, 'Oh my gosh, he can find me.'"
Remember when the libs went ape ****, because Vallery Plame's name was leaked? This is thousands of times worse, and the libs are silent.
Most states do not allow inmates to have access to the internet.
How are prisoners accessing this information?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
